This is gibberish.

I see nobody addressed how right wing media covered THE CARAVAN around the clock up until the second the 2018 midterms were over.

nobody tell joe. he's starting to figure out why we all haven't put him on ignore. he's becoming self aware..

So, you are good with the methods of Flynn investigation, handling of the Hillary/Podesta Steele dossier, the FISA warrants, Comey referrals, McCabe lies, Clapper lies, MSM falsehoods compared to sworn testimony, Schiff evidence that was no evidence at all,...?

It's not gibberish when you consider that this is being represented as a survey or poll, and you have close to 2,000 former DoJ "officials" willing to get in the way of an investigation that uncovered quite a bit of improper conduct.

Why would Biden need to unmask General Flynn anyway? What would the Vice President need that information for, a few weeks before they leave office?

Are all you on the left in here also ok with all the unmasking requests made by Obama's staff between the election and Trump's inauguration? You do realize unmasking members of the opposing transition team is pretty much starting a political war right?

Lot of republicans hate Trump. They were involved in this spying and abuse of power.

I was expecting people like Clapper and Rice to be involved in these unmasking requests. They might have legitimate claims to (they don't though cause they admit they have 0 evidence of collusion), but to see someone like Biden is unmasking Flynn too? I have zero clue why a vice president would need access to a US general conversation when he is about to leave office.

Comeys bullshit Hilary announcement on the run up to the election totally a legitimate act?

Yeah Dinopoker is adept at regurgitating left wing narratives.

No it wasn’t right actually. So you are ok with TRUMP firing Comey then right?

According to the political poll posted in another thread, I am not on the left. But I'll answer anyway.

Intelligence surveillance of a Russian official picked up a call from a member of a political campaign who tried to sell very high-stakes political favors that ran contrary to congress-approved foreign policy / sanctions. As per custom, this is put into a briefing (or similar document) where name of this campaign member is made anonymous. It was feared that this political operative had opened himself up to blackmail, by breaking the law and admitting it to high-profiled Russian players.

According to you, the correct thing to do by the WH administration after having seen this document, was to completely ignore it.

What was done, was to formally request the name be unsealed and there-after inform the political campaign what was happening, and also inform them that said political operative was lying to his campaign about his dealings. No public announcement was made at this point and no leaks occurred, so there was no public embarrassment to the campaign.

Again, according to you (and others in this thread) this is apparently the worst political scandal in US history and a heinous crime.

A perjury charge for testifying under oath that he lied and then saying he didn't. The poor satirist don't stand a chance vs real life anymore.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ntempt-perjury

.

I'm 100% confident every single derper talking about UNMASKING has no idea what that means

Do you think Biden's reply to the questions a day before is problematic?

But even ignoring that and pretending like unmasking works how you mistakenly think it does; If I'm an incoming president and a member of my transition team is actually working for foreign agents and is lying to me and other members of my team about it, I would be incredibly thankful to the outgoing administration if they alerted me to that fact!!!

Deep State judge!!!!!!!

This is the proper assessment of this Investigation.


In no world, or reality, WOULD or SHOULD an investigation NOT be conducted of the Trump campaign based on the information that was coming in via the proper channels (bottom up). This is incontrovertible fact.

The biggest danger in all of this, is that Trump and his DOJ's efforts put a chilling effect on future FBI needed investigations and the Heads of the FBI simply won't touch it.

Put Trump aside and imagine a future POTUS campaign that evidence comes in is being supported by China and has strong and potentially illegal ties to China who is also KNOWN to be meddling in the campaign.

It may turn out to be a big nothing burger but the FBi won't know UNLESS they investigate. If the ACT of investigating is then demonized by that winning POTUS and said to be wrong simply for taking place, that is wrong.

The investigation NEEDS to happen. An investigation that happens and finds nothing wrong happened is not an investigation that should not have happened. .

Theres your issue. There was NO evidence of collusion. The call that Flynn had with the Russian Ambassador was a completely standard call. Trump never colluded with Russia. The Obama admin KNEW there was 0 Evidence of it. Your whole post is based on the premise that there was evidence to start a investigation, but there wasn't any, based on the testimonies of the people who were involved in this.

They were investigating the people, not a crime. It was a complete abuse of power and I want to know, the evidence you feel warranted spying on them.

I haven't even seen sufficient evidence that Russia wanted Trump to win. I don't think Russia had any influence. Just because some Russian bots posted about our election, doesn't mean Putin was trying to steal an election for Trump. A lot of Trump decisions have actually hurt Russia, while Obama admin/Hillary would have a much more predictable stance towards Russia. When you are a world leader and a new president is being elected, you would want that person to be predictable, anyone who is an expert at game theory knows that. Trump is completely unpredictable at the point of his election. Hillarys agenda is completely known to be a follow up of Obamas policies.

I still think Seth Rich leaked the Podesta emails. and while Russia and China and many other countries probably hacked that information, I believe it was a democrat person who is at the center of what they blamed the Russians for. A Brave, Proud American in Seth Rich. A Bernie Sanders supporter, put his life on the line, to let people know the truth, by leaking Podesta emails to wikileaks, now he is dead. His murder is an unsolved mystery. Marked down as murder/stealing, but the "robber" never took Seth Rich' stuff. More likely this is a political killing.



Crowdstrike, the security organization that investigated the "hacking" admits under oath they don't know if Russia actually hacked the information. Wikileaks has said they have evidence that Seth Rich leaked that information to them. This was one of the main basis of the investigation into Russia "helping" Trump

You do not KNOW if their evidence until you investigate.

It is absolutely appropriate to investigate and find 'there is no evidence to proceed' or 'there is evidence to proceed'. You guys keep MISTAKENLY assuming if the investigation determines it was a nothing burger then the investigation was not warranted.

Haha. Well that pretty much says all that needs to be said about you and your ability to be objective.


"...Russian President Vladimir Putin says he favored Donald Trump because he talked about bringing the Russian relationship back to normal...."

Putin says he wanted Trump to win the presidential election

Actually you usually start an investigation based off evidence.

So you don't think its possible Putin could be lying to create disinformation. Disinformation is a classic tactic of Russia/The Kremlin/Putin