Mueller Investigation pt4

[acbytesla]

As we say in North Dakota "ope!"



The word gets thrown around entirely too much. Not everyone here is a skeptic (I certainly don't consider my self one. Maybe an "in-training", but the word means something), and I don't think a lot of people understand what it means anymore.

I consider myself a skeptic. But that doesn't mean I don't make up my mind. I am more than willing to reconsider when good evidence is provided on a subject. TBD has a tendency to toss conservative CT theories and then suggest that others are not really skeptics since we don't consider them.

Weird. I'm from Sioux City and I never heard that one.

 

[plague311]

I consider myself a skeptic. But that doesn't mean I don't make up my mind. I am more than willing to reconsider when good evidence is provided on a subject. TBD has a tendency to toss conservative CT theories and then suggest that others are not really skeptics since we don't consider them.

I can certainly agree there are skeptics here. There are people I love reading, and people I just gloss over when I see their names. It isn't politically motivated either. I roam over both sides LoL. As I'm sure many to do me as well.

Weird. I'm from Sioux City and I never heard that one.

I bet I hear it 10-12 times a day.

 

[a_unique_person]

So who leaked the surveillance of the Flynn call to the ambassador to CIA lackey David Ignatius?

Comey (one of the few people he followed on twitter before his handle was exposed)?

Or John Brennan? (spittle soaked anti-Trump fanatic).

Hmmm....

why not both?

It's like asking who Deep Throat was and why hasn't he been jailed yet.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's like asking who Deep Throat was and why hasn't he been jailed yet.

But... people did ask who Deep Throat was... for years, it was a big deal.

I think it is more like asking did the CIA deliberately leak surveillance audio of a perfectly legal transaction involving a US Citizen for purely political purposes, and if so, why haven't the people responsible been put in ******* jail?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hmm, the in-curiosity of who in the Obama administration leaked the surveillance tapes to WaPo.

What "surveillance tapes"? The article in question makes no reference to any surveillance tapes. What it says is:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Trump’s choice for national security adviser, cultivates close Russian contacts. He has appeared on Russia Today and received a speaking fee from the cable network, which was described in last week’s unclassified intelligence briefing on Russian hacking as “the Kremlin’s principal international propaganda outlet.”

According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking. What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions? The Logan Act (though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about “disputes” with the United States. Was its spirit violated? The Trump campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

[...]

UPDATE: The Trump transition team did not respond Thursday night to a request for comment. But two team members called with information Friday morning. A first Trump official confirmed that Flynn had spoken with Kislyak by phone, but said the calls were before sanctions were announced and didn’t cover that topic. This official later added that Flynn’s initial call was to express condolences to Kislyak after the terrorist killing of the Russian ambassador to Ankara Dec. 19, and that Flynn made a second call Dec. 28 to express condolences for the shoot-down of a Russian plane carrying a choir to Syria. In that second call, Flynn also discussed plans for a Trump-Putin conversation sometime after the inauguration. In addition, a second Trump official said the Dec. 28 call included an invitation from Kislyak for a Trump administration official to visit Kazakhstan for a conference in late January.

Flynn has since confessed that he did indeed discuss sanctions with Kislyak, asking the Russian government to hold off on retaliation for Obama's sanctions as things would be different once Trump was in office.

There was a later leak which revealed that Flynn had lied and that there were tapes of his conversation, but still no reference to the tapes being leaked. So what are you talking about?

 

[The Big Dog]

What "surveillance tapes"? The article in question makes no reference to any surveillance tapes. What it says is:



Flynn has since confessed that he did indeed discuss sanctions with Kislyak, asking the Russian government to hold off on retaliation for Obama's sanctions as things would be different once Trump was in office.

no way, the CIA errand boy did not admit that he got the info about the call through CIA surveillance of the Russian Ambassador?

He is very clever!

oy vey...

 

[plague311]

no way, the CIA errand boy did not admit that he got the info about the call through CIA surveillance of the Russian Ambassador?

He is very clever!

oy vey...

Can we get a split over to the CT section?

 

[a_unique_person]

These molehills just keep getting smaller and harder to find.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So who leaked the surveillance of the Flynn call to the ambassador to CIA lackey David Ignatius?

Comey (one of the few people he followed on twitter before his handle was exposed)?

Or John Brennan? (spittle soaked anti-Trump fanatic).

Hmmm....

why not both?

The article says there were 9 sources for the information, so it could be both of them who made the leak. But none of them appear to have leaked the tapes, as you allege.

 

[The Big Dog]

These molehills just keep getting smaller and harder to find.

Damn right, another good post by you!

molehill: hey this guy maybe told not fully consistent things about this perfectly legal thing he did. Prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law!

0 to 14 days in jail.

Mountain: Hey what about the CIA leaks? Hello? Anyone home?

Crickets.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

no way, the CIA errand boy did not admit that he got the info about the call through CIA surveillance of the Russian Ambassador?

He is very clever!

oy vey...

If you want to convince people that the tapes themselves have been leaked, then you'll have to provide a better argument than that there is no evidence that the tapes themselves have been leaked.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you want to convince people that the tapes themselves have been leaked, then you'll have to provide a better argument than that there is no evidence that the tapes themselves have been leaked.

You did see the part where he said there was a phone call, right?

Where do you think he got the info about that?

I wonder if it was from the fact that the CIA was listening in on the calls of the Russian Ambassador?

What do you think?

 

[acbytesla]

I bet I hear it 10-12 times a day.

It's been 20 years since I've been there, so maybe that explains it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You did see the part where he said there was a phone call, right?

Where do you think he got the info about that?

I wonder if it was from the fact that the CIA was listening in on the calls of the Russian Ambassador?

What do you think?

Where did you get the information about the contents of the phonecalls from? Have you heard the tapes? Or is it possible to acquire information in a different way?

If you want to convince people that the tapes themselves have been leaked, then you'll have to provide a better argument than that there is no evidence that the tapes themselves have been leaked. Denying that people have the ability to convey information to other people is not a better argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where did you get the information about the contents of the phonecalls from? Have you heard the tapes? Or is it possible to acquire information in a different way?

If you want to convince people that the tapes themselves have been leaked, then you'll have to provide a better argument than that there is no evidence that the tapes themselves have been leaked. Denying that people have the ability to convey information to other people is not a better argument.

Wait are you quibbling that the physical tapes were not leaked just the information on them?

oof, if so, that is just some next level quibbling I had not expected...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Wait are you quibbling that the physical tapes were not leaked just the information on them?

oof, if so, that is just some next level quibbling I had not expected...

That's a gracious way to admit that you were wrong. I'd call that progress. Well done.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's a gracious way to admit that you were wrong. I'd call that progress. Well done.

Golly, wait until you hear that:

it
wasn't
even
on
tape!

It was "digital."

Banner day for The Resistance! They caught TBD using easily understood colloquial terms, and declared victory when they found out it wasn't even on "tape."

Banner day, take a bow.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Golly, wait until you hear that:

it
wasn't
even
on
tape!

It was "digital."

Banner day for The Resistance! They caught TBD using easily understood colloquial terms, and declared victory when they found out it wasn't even on "tape."

Banner day, take a bow.

Well done. You'll get there. Just keep trying, that's the important thing.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well done. You'll get there. Just keep trying, that's the important thing.

educating folks on what a specious nit picking objection you have raised?

Yeah, pretty much there.

TBD is launching dingers, and y'all are bragging that you got a first down.

Touchdown TBD!

 

[tyr_13]

"Curious" as to why sensible people don't use the ignore function on trolls.

Because we have a troll president, supported by other trolls, and we have even non-trolls supporting them with the same troll arguments.

Their arguments and views are those we have to deal with. I understand there is the balance of giving them credence by addressing them at all, and not allowing bad/stupid/irrational/hateful/utterly craven ideas to go unchallenged, but the former ship has sailed with them gaining political power.

Do you see any Trump defender making any arguments substantially better? The only ones I can find are those that address only the accusations against Trump that are not supported or have evidence against them, and even then those people tend to then lump all accusations against Trump in with the weak ones.