Obamagate

I can't help myself.

The Obama administration knew that they were unmasking Flynn because he was using the phone that had been issued to him by the government and they had been keeping records of his outgoing calls. The "unmasking" was merely a formality to formally identify someone who was already known to them.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ynn-phone/

I wonder how many people on this site would have calmly accepted the G W Bush administration utilizing the FBI, NSA and CIA to conduct covert operations against Obama, especially after he won the 2008 elections?

Surprised that we haven't had smr on here chanting "Lock them up", or some such.
Tfly, not my country or system. Yours is different in that the President has active control over his Administration, whereas in our system individual ministers manage separate departments that each have discrete responsibilities. That said, I'd imagine that during each transition period the Administration does run background checks to ensure that the incoming people don't have any skeletons in the cupboard.
Previous bad experiences when accessing your pet conservative web sites mean that I'll pass on following that link, as I don't need any tracking malware thanks.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I can't help myself.

The Obama administration knew that they were unmasking Flynn because he was using the phone that had been issued to him by the government and they had been keeping records of his outgoing calls. The "unmasking" was merely a formality to formally identify someone who was already known to them.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ynn-phone/

I wonder how many people on this site would have calmly accepted the G W Bush administration utilizing the FBI, NSA and CIA to conduct covert operations against Obama, especially after he won the 2008 elections?

If that is what really happened, you'd be right. But I rather strongly doubt it. First of all, both Bush and Obama respected our institutions and understood public service well enough not to have done such a thing. There have only been two presidents in my own lifetime, Nixon and Trump, who would have stooped to using the justice department or the FBI against their political opponents.

Secondly, Flynn really did lie to the FBI about the phone call. That is pretty much incontravertable. Flynn was wiretapped because he was deemed a security risk. Furthermore, he admitted it by pleading guilty.

Finally, what we are really looking at here is a distraction, a distraction manufactured by the Donald to divert attention away from his disastrous handling of the pandemic and the tanking economy. It is also an attempt to do what he failed to manage with the Ukraine scandal, to destroy a political opponent.

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:I can't help myself.

The Obama administration knew that they were unmasking Flynn because he was using the phone that had been issued to him by the government and they had been keeping records of his outgoing calls. The "unmasking" was merely a formality to formally identify someone who was already known to them.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... ynn-phone/

I wonder how many people on this site would have calmly accepted the G W Bush administration utilizing the FBI, NSA and CIA to conduct covert operations against Obama, especially after he won the 2008 elections?

One more time Tfly, the sequence of events was:

• Russian attack on election.
  
• ***Russians*** being surveilled and sanctioned
  
• Flynn having undisclosed backdoor discussions with the Russians who were under surveillance about dealing with the US sanctions.
  
• Flynn getting identified as ANY person engaging in those discussions would have been identified by an unmasking. Maskimg is to protect innocent US citizens from having random innocuous conversations that happen to get picked up because they were talking to a surveilled target get exposed. NOT to protect fucking guilty people having shady conversations with US enemies.
  
• Obama people warned Trump team he was shady.
  
• Trump made him fucking NSA ANYWAY.
  
• FBI did their job and questioned Flynn. Flynn lied to them. Got busted.

There is no wrongdoing in any of that except by Flynn, and Trump. Everything else was the system working as it was supposed to, not some dark malicious conspiracy against the big orange moron.

Your claim they knew it was Flynn before the unmasking, whether true or not, means exactly squat. He was engaged in conduct that CALLED FOR THE UNMASKING. He was getting unmasked either way.

Annachie wrote:Don, to the rest of the western world, politically speaking, a liberal is someone who follows clasical liberalism. Generally a moderate right wing position. Although thanks to the Tea Party and Trump and such those parties are drifting further right. (Or maybe the tea party was a for runner not a cause. Discussion for a different day)

Used classically, liberalism refers to liberal democracy with the normal tenants that go with that: individual rights, representative government, rule of law, etc.

You seem to be coming at it in more of a British sense looking back to Disraeli (sp), Asquith during WW1 and has a small following in Britian today. I think center-right would describe them.

American liberalism flows from the progressivism of Teddy Roosevelt who aggressively used government to solve problems, establishment of national parks, break up monopolies and trusts. That morphed into FDR and the New Deal, LBJ and the Great Society, etc.

I would claim to be a liberal in both the classic and the American sense.

In some ways, the evolution of consevativism in both Britian and America --how they have both diverged and intertwined-- is an even more interesting discussion. But for another post, another day.

Don

-

Daryl wrote:Surprised that we haven't had smr on here chanting "Lock them up", or some such.
Tfly, not my country or system. Yours is different in that the President has active control over his Administration, whereas in our system individual ministers manage separate departments that each have discrete responsibilities. That said, I'd imagine that during each transition period the Administration does run background checks to ensure that the incoming people don't have any skeletons in the cupboard.
Previous bad experiences when accessing your pet conservative web sites mean that I'll pass on following that link, as I don't need any tracking malware thanks.

I've never gotten any malware from THE CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE. Maybe you contracted something nasty from a porn site?

Administrations normally do background checks. Flynn's background was impeccable with the possible exception of a visit to Trump campaign headquarters to warn him that they were being surveiled.

The theory that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the election is insane and inane. Foreign countries and foreign citizens interfere with US elections all the time. It is no more sinister than you foreigners commenting on this website. Unless Russia is hacking voting machines, it is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the Obama administration conducting covert operations against a candidate for POTUS in an effort to ensure that Obama's former Secretary of State becomes POTUS. That should scare the crap out of everyone.

I heard that the Flynn/Russian phone call was Flynn contacting his soon-to-be opposite on the Russian side to give him a "Hi, I'm me, i know who you are. This is a heads-up, I'm likely to be the one you're negotiating with this time next year" type call.

If that's true, is it really treason?

And what about the report that Flynn did a deal because the FBI threatened to go after his son if he didn't do as they wanted? his statement did say that he was doing what he did "for the good of his family...

Michael Everett wrote:I heard that the Flynn/Russian phone call was Flynn contacting his soon-to-be opposite on the Russian side to give him a "Hi, I'm me, i know who you are. This is a heads-up, I'm likely to be the one you're negotiating with this time next year" type call.

If that's true, is it really treason?

And what about the report that Flynn did a deal because the FBI threatened to go after his son if he didn't do as they wanted? his statement did say that he was doing what he did "for the good of his family...

Not reporting it when specifically asked about it is a sackable offence, and it was his boss he lied to.
Telling a lie to the FBI when asked for it is a criminal offence.


Of course deliberately tanking the plea agreement then dropping all charges is corruption of a high order, but basicly a normal day for Barr.

Michael Everett wrote:I heard that the Flynn/Russian phone call was Flynn contacting his soon-to-be opposite on the Russian side to give him a "Hi, I'm me, i know who you are. This is a heads-up, I'm likely to be the one you're negotiating with this time next year" type call.

If that's true, is it really treason?

And what about the report that Flynn did a deal because the FBI threatened to go after his son if he didn't do as they wanted? his statement did say that he was doing what he did "for the good of his family...

IIRC, the call in question was at least in part a discussion of sanctions imposed by the Obama Administration with the thought that they could be removed when the new administration took over. The issue here is whether or not that Trump and/or his people were interfering with foreign policy when it was still the responsibility of the outgoing administration.

The nub of the matter, though, is that Flynn was caught lying to the FBI. I wonder why he did that. He was seasoned in national security matters to the point that he should have understood that the mere fact that the FBI was asking questions meant that something was up.

One can wonder about what the son was involved in that the FBI was interested in...

Also, Flynn had been doing work for a foreign state without registering as a agent of that state... Turkey, I believe. A legal no no. I think he did register after the fact.

I doubt that any of this actually qualifies as treason although after the guilty plea the judge presiding over the court had some very harsh things to say...

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

Daryl wrote:Surprised that we haven't had smr on here chanting "Lock them up", or some such.
Tfly, not my country or system. Yours is different in that the President has active control over his Administration, whereas in our system individual ministers manage separate departments that each have discrete responsibilities. That said, I'd imagine that during each transition period the Administration does run background checks to ensure that the incoming people don't have any skeletons in the cupboard.
Previous bad experiences when accessing your pet conservative web sites mean that I'll pass on following that link, as I don't need any tracking malware thanks.

I've never gotten any malware from THE CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE. Maybe you contracted something nasty from a porn site?

Administrations normally do background checks. Flynn's background was impeccable with the possible exception of a visit to Trump campaign headquarters to warn him that they were being surveiled.

The theory that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the election is insane and inane. Foreign countries and foreign citizens interfere with US elections all the time. It is no more sinister than you foreigners commenting on this website. Unless Russia is hacking voting machines, it is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the Obama administration conducting covert operations against a candidate for POTUS in an effort to ensure that Obama's former Secretary of State becomes POTUS. That should scare the crap out of everyone.

Perhaps THE CONSERVATIVE TREEHOUSE is a porn site... Don't know... haven't looked...

TFLY, with reference to your last paragraph, you, your right-wing fellow travelers and Mr. Trump are all full of it. This sort of thing does nothing for your credibility. That Trump has his tame AG doesn't change that.

Don

-