[jimjam]

Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference.

[late]

Attorney General William P. Barr dismissed President Trump’s attempts to rebrand the Russia investigation as a criminal plot engineered by former President Barack Obama, saying on Monday that he expected no charges against either Mr. Obama or former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as a result of an investigation into how their administration handled Russian election interference.

Translation: If Trump loses, I don't want to go to jail.

[Wulfschilde]

Obviously the Trump administration has had access to this information for years but they are choosing to release it now because we're nearing election season.

Also, we can assume there is some kind of "October surprise" in the works because there is too much hype for there not to be.

Since it's not October yet, we can assume that this is not the best evidence they have about Obamagate. It naturally follows that "conspiracy theory" is not the best dialogue to use against this but certain people are going to do so anyway

[pugsville]

Obviously the Trump administration has had access to this information for years but they are choosing to release it now because we're nearing election season.

Also, we can assume there is some kind of "October surprise" in the works because there is too much hype for there not to be.

Since it's not October yet, we can assume that this is not the best evidence they have about Obamagate. It naturally follows that "conspiracy theory" is not the best dialogue to use against this but certain people are going to do so anyway

I think you are giving the Trump administration far too much credit for strategic thinking.

Just look at the revolving door of appointment and staff in this white house. It incapable of any long term strategic thinking.

[ingliz]

The FBI stated they did not request to unmask Flynn

There was no need...

A U.S. person’s name can be disseminated in an intelligence report if knowing his identity satisfies the “necessary to understand” requirement.

Two exceptions to this prohibition on dissemination exist. The first allows dissemination where a U.S. person's identity is "necessary to understand" foreign intelligence information. The person's identity must be needed to make the information fully intelligible, If the information can be understood without identifying the person, it should be disseminated that way. However, sometimes it might be difficult or impossible to make sense out of the information without a U.S, person's identity. One example would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Goyernment having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identities of such persons would frequently satisfy the "necessary to understand" requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

— Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, A Report together with Supplemental, Additional, and Dissenting Views from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8, 1978.

Flynn was widely expected to have 'significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy' in a Trump administration. Even if at the time the calls were made, he didn't (Logan Act?).

[Finfinder]

There was no need...

A U.S. person’s name can be disseminated in an intelligence report if knowing his identity satisfies the “necessary to understand” requirement.

Two exceptions to this prohibition on dissemination exist. The first allows dissemination where a U.S. person's identity is "necessary to understand" foreign intelligence information. The person's identity must be needed to make the information fully intelligible, If the information can be understood without identifying the person, it should be disseminated that way. However, sometimes it might be difficult or impossible to make sense out of the information without a U.S, person's identity. One example would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Goyernment having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identities of such persons would frequently satisfy the "necessary to understand" requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

— Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, A Report together with Supplemental, Additional, and Dissenting Views from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8, 1978.

Flynn was widely expected to have 'significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy' in a Trump administration. Even if at the time the calls were made, he didn't (Logan Act?).

You are not follopwing this story well. The FBI is on record saying they did not unmask Flynn. What part of that are you not comprehending?

[ingliz]

they did not unmask Flynn.

They did not need to 'unmask' him. The unmasking would have been done by whatever intelligence agency (The NSA in this case) was wiretapping the Russian ambassador and disseminated to the FBI as a professional courtesy. It wasn't a secret that Flynn was under investigation. It would have piqued the interest of any analyst in the intelligence community to see him promising the Russians things he was in no position to deliver. In any case, Section 702 of FISA allows the US government to spy on the internet and telephone communications of a 'US person' both in the United States and abroad without a warrant so long as a “significant” purpose of the surveillance is to gather “foreign intelligence information.” As long as the intelligence gathered is 'incidental' and the US person is not the 'target', it's perfectly legal.

[Unthinking Majority]

I think Obama admin officials were worried about Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump officials. I don't blame Biden for looking into things.

It still seems obvious that the Trump campaign were hob-knobbing with enemies of the United States who had bad intentions.

[Finfinder]

They did not need to 'unmask' him. The unmasking would have been done by whatever intelligence agency (The NSA in this case) was wiretapping the Russian ambassador and disseminated to the FBI as a professional courtesy. It wasn't a secret that Flynn was under investigation. It would have piqued the interest of any analyst in the intelligence community to see him promising the Russians things he was in no position to deliver. In any case, Section 702 of FISA allows the US government to spy on the internet and telephone communications of a 'US person' both in the United States and abroad without a warrant so long as a “significant” purpose of the surveillance is to gather “foreign intelligence information.” As long as the intelligence gathered is 'incidental' and the US person is not the 'target', it's perfectly legal.

No you are wrong again. You can't just spy and unmask people because they are the rival political party and the incoming administration. There was NO significant purpose. There is no reason to believe he would promise the Russians anything nor did he. Obama got caught after the fact you can dance all you want, you are wrong I am correct. How much you want to bet on it?

I think Obama admin officials were worried about Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with Trump officials. I don't blame Biden for looking into things.

It still seems obvious that the Trump campaign were hob-knobbing with enemies of the United States who had bad intentions.

Do any of you people actually look into these stories before you comment.

The Obama officials were worried because they were the ones who actually colluded with Russia and then tried to cover it up. This is an absolute fact.

[late]

No you are wrong again. You can't just spy and unmask people because they are the rival political party and the incoming administration. There was NO significant purpose. There is no reason to believe he would promise the Russians anything nor did he. Obama got caught after the fact you can dance all you want, you are wrong I am correct. How much you want to bet on it?

Well, that was nuts.

Unmasking happens a couple dozen times a day, it's routine. It's also needed, it's part of the sifting process, of finding problems before they turn into a crisis.

I've got a bridge to sell, and I can offer you an unbelievable price. You would get rich.

[Finfinder]

Well, that was nuts.

Unmasking happens a couple dozen times a day, it's routine. It's also needed, it's part of the sifting process, of finding problems before they turn into a crisis.

I've got a bridge to sell, and I can offer you an unbelievable price. You would get rich.

no its not routine. It's only routine for Democrats and deep state traitors.

The FBI said they did not unmask Flynn. I know you want to deflect from that fact. You cannot refute a single fact I post on this thread so far in your own words.

I agree you are trying to sell a bridge and you are full of shit. Its why you liberals are going to lose big time yet again. You literally have nothing to offer this discussion.

You guys got caught rigging the primary with Sanders you got caught colluding with Russia and trying to rig the last presidential election and you got caught trying to cover it up.

Put your money where your mouth is want to bet on it ?

[ingliz]

There was NO significant purpose.

So knowing what the Russian ambassador is doing with whom and when is a waste of NSA time and US tax dollars?

[Finfinder]

So knowing what the Russian ambassador is doing with whom and when is a waste of NSA time and US tax dollars?

Since it is a clear fact that this entire Russian thing has been a hoax I'd would say yes. We are not communist here.

Look at the testimony ( although the transcripts have been posted here on POFO and you even deny the FBI own notes ) Clapper and Brennan testified behind closed doors they had nothing on Trump or Flynn nor were worried about them. Now like traitors and cowherds they went on TV and said just the opposite called them traitors. How do you explain that away? You can't.

Dude you cannot refute any of what I posted it is fact. You clearly are partisan or have very little knowledge about what you are trying to argue.

[late]

no its not routine.

7,700 times last year.

Could you dial down the pathetic fool routine just a bit?

I am embarrassed for you and that's just wrong.

[Finfinder]

7,700 times last year.

Could you dial down the pathetic fool routine just a bit?

I am embarrassed for you and that's just wrong.

Nothing but personal attacks. That's OK you have zero credibility, retired in poor health and wasting the remainder of your life posting on a forum. Yeah I'm the pathetic one.

[late]

Nothing but personal attacks.

7,700 times lat year.

[ingliz]

Yeah I'm the pathetic one.

Using your argument, 2446 posts would seem to confirm that. But, that aside, your argument against the wiretapping is specious. You would be much better off concentrating on 'disclosure' in the plea agreement. The problem with that is it only allows Flynn an out of the plea agreement and leaves him and his son open to being prosecuted on their criminal activities that were swept aside when he signed it. I, for one, would be happy to see him withdraw his plea and try and defend that activity in a court of law.

His business partner, don't forget, has already been found guilty by a jury on those FARA violations. If you were serious about 'draining the swamp', you would welcome this. Five years or more in a federal prison (Manafort received 73 months on similar charges) would be another signal that covertly acting as an agent for a foreign power, illegal lobbying, will not be tolerated.

[Finfinder]

Using your argument, 2446 posts would seem to confirm that. But, that aside, your argument against the wiretapping is specious. You would be much better off concentrating on 'disclosure' in the plea agreement. The problem with that is it only allows Flynn an out of the plea agreement and leaves him and his son open to being prosecuted on their criminal activities that were swept aside when he signed it. I, for one, would be happy to see him withdraw his plea and try and defend that activity in a court of law.

His business partner, don't forget, has already been found guilty by a jury on those FARA violations. If you were serious about 'draining the swamp', you would welcome this. Five years or more in a federal prison (Manafort received 73 months on similar charges) would be another signal that covertly acting as an agent for a foreign power, illegal lobbying, will not be tolerated.

You can pretend the FBI and Obama didn't set up Flynn all you want that doesn't mean everyone knows he was set up. The facts have been laid out it's not disputable.

Now its about his business partner just change the goal posts LOL. Where is the rest of my quote you can't even make an argument unless you rig the quote. Way to go. I'll take this as you see I have owned you on this discussion. We will revisit this thread at a later date and you again can tell me a blank sheet of white paper is in fact black.

[ingliz]

Now its about his business partner

No, it's not about his business partner.

I was just pointing out a jury found his business partner guilty on the evidence that will be presented when Flynn and his son are up on the same charges.

[Finfinder]

No, it's not about his business partner.

I was just pointing out a jury found his business partner guilty on the evidence that will be presented when Flynn and his son are up on the same charges.

This is typical liberal propaganda . So why is it in all these times you bring up Flynn's business partner and his son and Turkey you conveniently leave out the fact that a federal judged dropped the case actually overturned it?

Why are you misleading people on purpose, that's no way to prove a point. You illiterately have no argument. The FBI's hand written note say for a fact that they set up Flynn and we now know Obama ordered it. We know for a fact that Flynn business partner was not convicted for the crimes you claim yet you keep spreading that part of the story. BTW you also do this to posters you take a paragraph and whittle down to 3 words. You think you can get away with this ? Not here.