Jared Kushner confirmed as under scrutiny by FBI - NBC News

[Orbitus]

How about US agencies committing treason by leaking stuff to media out of their partisan convictions?

Isn't it in fact illegal for US agencies to monitor US citizens without clear reason, just because "they could be doing something wrong"?

See folks, this is a perfect example of what it looks like to deflect when EVERYTHING is going against you in an argument.

If a US citizen is talking to people they shouldn't be, like say Russian intelligence/diplomats like Jared Kushner was, they deserve to be fucking monitored.

- - - Updated - - -

They wouldn't get so many leaks to media, and media would try to spin it as "usual stuff diplomats do"... because it is quite usual.

Talking to Russian agents isn't illegal either.

Actually talk to Russian agents, when you have no security clearance is. Otherwise Flynn wouldn't have been forced to resign. It is illegal because of the 1799 Logan Act.

[Stacyrect]

That's terrible if true. Especially since 85% error rate is apparently unexceptional. So that clipping does more to refute the idea of political espionage targetting Trump during the campaign year. But drawing any conclusion about the reason behind that error rate is really a bad fucking idea.

Not exactly. 85% suggests that we weren't even trying to follow the law lol. The height of these unmaskings happened before the DNC hack if you look at the time table, it suggests that this was indeed political espionage

- - - Updated - - -

The leaks are coming out in response to Trump firing Comey. That isn't partisan. It's treating Trump like he deserves to be treating and setting up back channel with a foreign government is not things usual governments do.

It depends on what they talked about. Perhaps it was nothing but if so why didn't Kushner report those conversations on his security clearance?

Yup, Kusher colluded with the russians during the election cycle. That's why he set up back channel communications after the election hurrrrrrrrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

- - - Updated - - -

See folks, this is a perfect example of what it looks like to deflect when EVERYTHING is going against you in an argument.

If a US citizen is talking to people they shouldn't be, like say Russian intelligence/diplomats like Jared Kushner was, they deserve to be fucking monitored.

- - - Updated - - -



Actually talk to Russian agents, when you have no security clearance is. Otherwise Flynn wouldn't have been forced to resign. It is illegal because of the 1799 Logan Act.

You are making the distinction that their was in depth discussion with Flynn and Russia. Sanctions were not discussed in depth, merely mentioned. He didn't disclose that, which is why he is fired.

[Orbitus]

You are making the distinction that their was in depth discussion with Flynn and Russia. Sanctions were not discussed in depth, merely mentioned. He didn't disclose that, which is why he is fired.

Obviously there was, otherwise Sally Yates wouldn't have brought it to the Whitehouse's attention, and he wasn't fired, he resigned because he was going to get blackmailed by the fucking Russians. But hey, don't let facts get in your fucking way.

[Stacyrect]

Obviously there was, otherwise Sally Yates wouldn't have brought it to the Whitehouse's attention, and he wasn't fired, he resigned because he was going to get blackmailed by the fucking Russians. But hey, don't let facts get in your fucking way.

lololololol blackmailed. oooooookkkk. Their was nothing to blackmail flynn on. He resigned because he told everyone he had not discussed sanctions, when technically he had, nothing that was in depth. How you think this equates to blackmail is beyond me, and I don't want to know. Just know that you are demonstrably wrong.

[Orbitus]

lololololol blackmailed. oooooookkkk. Their was nothing to blackmail flynn on. He resigned because he told everyone he had not discussed sanctions, when technically he had, nothing that was in depth. How you think this equates to blackmail is beyond me, and I don't want to know. Just know that you are demonstrably wrong.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN15S0BR From the other thread I am roflstomping you in. He discussed sanctions with them, Yates warned the Whitehouse that he could be blackmailed for it.

Again, you like being wrong don't you?

[Stacyrect]

I mean if you think I'm wrong, good for you guy. Let's walk this out. Flynn's transcripts aren't leaked, he heads the national security. Russia says, Flynn, we are blackmailing you because you lied about discussing sanctions. Flynn would say take a hike bozo, I never promised you anything. Russia leaks conversation, everyone see's the brief mentions of sanctions discussion. FBI does investigation, clears Flynn of wrongdoing. Flynn makes public apology, says he misspoke. You can't fucking black mail people if they aren't doing something wrong, do you even know how black mail works? Jesus Christ

[Wyrt]

I mean if you think I'm wrong, good for you guy. Let's walk this out. Flynn's transcripts aren't leaked, he heads the national security. Russia says, Flynn, we are blackmailing you because you lied about discussing sanctions. Flynn would say take a hike bozo, I never promised you anything. Russia leaks conversation, everyone see's the brief mentions of sanctions discussion. FBI does investigation, clears Flynn of wrongdoing. Flynn makes public apology, says he misspoke. You can't fucking black mail people if they aren't doing something wrong, do you even know how black mail works? Jesus Christ

If he did nothing wrong then why did he resign? Why is he hiding from congressional subpoenas?

[Stacyrect]

If he did nothing wrong then why did he resign? Why is he hiding from congressional subpoenas?

When Flynn was asked about discussions with sanctions with Russia, he said no, he had not discussed them. Which is half true. Sanctions were mentioned, but never discussed in depth. Meaning like Kislyak mentioned sanctions, Flynn said I can't really talk about that at this time. He stated sanctions were never discussed, when in fact they were, even though it was just minute. Flynn never promised anything, didn't do anything illegal, the FBI corroborated this. He resigned because he didn't disclose that and made a spectacle of himself. What we would normally call a technicality. You can't hide from a subpoena lol. If you don't show up, the police drag you to the court.

[Kiri]

When Flynn was asked about discussions with sanctions with Russia, he said no, he had not discussed them. Which is half true. Sanctions were mentioned, but never discussed in depth. Meaning like Kislyak mentioned sanctions, Flynn said I can't really talk about that at this time. He stated sanctions were never discussed, when in fact they were, even though it was just minute. Flynn never promised anything, didn't do anything illegal, the FBI corroborated this. He resigned because he didn't disclose that and made a spectacle of himself. What we would normally call a technicality. You can't hide from a subpoena lol. If you don't show up, the police drag you to the court.

It is not helpful that Flynn is stoking that particular theory by asking for immunity in exchange for disclosing everything. Same with all those people lying about/not disclosing their meetings etc. If Trump and his people are so dead-set on making that Russia thing go away because there supposedly is nothing, they are doing an awful job about it. I just don't see the point in acting like they do.

[Shalcker]

Georgia and Crimea beg to differ. Russia was the aggressor in both instances.

Sorry, but in Georgia Georgia was aggressor. They started by shelling Russian peacekeepers in the area, without any warning.

So... how about actually double-checking your claims?

- - - Updated - - -

Kushner was identified by Kislyak in a call that involved only Russians. Even still his name would have had to be unmasked, and only if there were compelling reason to. Cleary there is compelling fucking reason. Your implication that the basis of the investigation into Kushner is illegal is ignorant, but suggests you know that the US is a nation of laws.

This reason was never given, so there is no "clearly" about it. In fact noone ever said there was clear reason, only that stuff was suspicious to them.

[Stacyrect]

It is not helpful that Flynn is stoking that particular theory by asking for immunity in exchange for disclosing everything. Same with all those people lying about/not disclosing their meetings etc. If Trump and his people are so dead-set on making that Russia thing go away because there supposedly is nothing, they are doing an awful job about it. I just don't see the point in acting like they do.

Who wouldn't ask for immunity in this political climate? I mean when you look at sessions and his disclosures, he was told not to disclose meetings by the fbi lol. So there seems to be a lot of confusion about what is supposed to be disclosed, what isn't supposed to be disclosed. I agree though, it doesn't do them any good to not disclose the information. The media however, have done an awful job at framing this situation.

[Kiri]

Who wouldn't ask for immunity in this political climate? I mean when you look at sessions and his disclosures, he was told not to disclose meetings by the fbi lol. So there seems to be a lot of confusion about what is supposed to be disclosed, what isn't supposed to be disclosed. I agree though, it doesn't do them any good to not disclose the information. The media however, have done an awful job at framing this situation.

Doesn't immunity only clear you of criminal charges? It makes little sense to ask for immunity when you are innocent. In the current political climate, clearing your name just by disclosing the things that prove your innocence is ten time more useful, so he should be doing that.

The media and everything tangentially related to Trump, eh, that is pointless anyway. Part of the media is for Trump, another is against him. Again, that stuff is handled with such antagonism on all sides that it is losing all meaning.

[Stacyrect]

Immunity can clear criminal charges in very specific instances, majority of the time it grants you immunity from being charged in the first place.

You have democratic lynch mobs looking for blood. I wouldn't testify to shit unless I had immunity in this witch hunt if I were him.

93% of the media coverage has been negative, only 7% positive. It's perfectly fine for negative coverage, but when it's a total landslide towards negative and there is no balance to it, that's bullshit. When MSM outlets drone on about conspiracy theories and don't report actual news, it's a problem. Even more then that, many of the same happenings that occurred under Obama that happen under Trump are reported completely different.

Perfect example

[Skandulous]

Georgia and Crimea beg to differ. Russia was the aggressor in both instances.

The CIA and western powers backed the coup in Kiev to overthrow a ally of Russia and install a govt allied to them. Euro maiden protesters then tried to round up and kill Russian speaking people so Russia stepped in and shut that shit down.

[ati87]

Immunity can clear criminal charges in very specific instances, majority of the time it grants you immunity from being charged in the first place.

You have democratic lynch mobs looking for blood. I wouldn't testify to shit unless I had immunity in this witch hunt if I were him.

93% of the media coverage has been negative, only 7% positive. It's perfectly fine for negative coverage, but when it's a total landslide towards negative and there is no balance to it, that's bullshit. When MSM outlets drone on about conspiracy theories and don't report actual news, it's a problem. Even more then that, many of the same happenings that occurred under Obama that happen under Trump are reported completely different.

Perfect example

That picture was stupid the first time and still stupid the second time.

You know why....

Obama didn't god dam blur out the intelligence

[Cthulhu 2020]

Obama receives permission and counsel for sharing intelligence, letting his security advisers know before hand. Trump blurts it out without consulting anyone.

Yes, clearly the media treats Trump unfairly, just as much as conservatives are hilarious for only reading headlines and not caring about context.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Immunity can clear criminal charges in very specific instances, majority of the time it grants you immunity from being charged in the first place.

You have democratic lynch mobs looking for blood. I wouldn't testify to shit unless I had immunity in this witch hunt if I were him.

93% of the media coverage has been negative, only 7% positive. It's perfectly fine for negative coverage, but when it's a total landslide towards negative and there is no balance to it, that's bullshit. When MSM outlets drone on about conspiracy theories and don't report actual news, it's a problem. Even more then that, many of the same happenings that occurred under Obama that happen under Trump are reported completely different.

You'll notice that he didn't get immunity, which is probably because they don't need his testimony. Flynn's getting nailed to the wall along with everyone else in that cesspool of a campaign.

And I, for one, think it's terribly unfair that malaria only gets negative coverage. Nobody ever wants to talk about the positive effects. The bloodthirsty media is engaged in an anti-malaria witchhunt.

Also it's adorable that you reposted that after it was shot down on another thread. Apples and oranges, they are not the same thing.

[Shalcker]

Obama receives permission and counsel for sharing intelligence, letting his security advisers know before hand. Trump blurts it out without consulting anyone.

How would you know if he did consult someone about it though?

[LaserSharkDFB]

How would you know if he did consult someone about it though?

He would have had to have consulted with Israel, because it was their intel, not ours. Given how pissed off they were about it, it's clear he didn't do that.

(Ugh. "would have had to have" is so awkward. You get what I mean.)

[Shalcker]

He would have had to have consulted with Israel, because it was their intel, not ours. Given how pissed off they were about it, it's clear he didn't do that.

Named rather then unnamed officials were actually quite okay with it.

Because a lot of stuff US does is worth more then even life of deep ISIS agent.

Also note that Trump only released name of city - that it was Israel agent embedded in ISIS actually came from US Media... so it is entirely possible Israelis were horrified at what gets leaked into US media, just like UK did with Manchester event.