Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: shooterbrody
hosted.ap.org...

His aides are engaging in real-time political combat with Trump, including revealing Monday that Obama personally warned his successor against tapping embattled Michael Flynn as his national security adviser.

I guess I have to ask how any of us can be so sure about this collusion thing? There is an ongoing investigation, & from the looks of it, it could take a while to crawl up every thread of that web.

Also, it does look like they had good reason to be spying on some of these characters. For example, if a FISA warrant was issued for Page last summer and then renewed multiple times, there was likely more than smoke to be had there.

So they openly admit trumps tweet was correct.
Obama himself personaly knew about this and had no problems with an american citizen being spied on when NO COLLUSION OR CRIMES WERE COMMITTED.

#worsethanwatergate

a reply to: Gandalf77

If that becomes a part of this mess

Do you really think 16 intel agencies missed this?
Do you think the fbi would have signed off on this if they thought there was ANY evidence of collusion or crime?
Do you think the fbi was the only agency with info on the "cointel" investigation?

what a fn joke

nothing to add about obama admitting he knew about flynn being unmasked even though there IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME?

a reply to: Gandalf77
Oops, sorry about that. I accidentally mashed up my response in the middle of your text. Apologies for the technical fumble there.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Who says Obama's warning had anything to do with connections to Russia? Remember, Flynn had already been fired under Obama.

a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess I have to ask how any of us can be so sure about this collusion thing?

The assessment released in an unclassified form last januaray?
or is the opinion of 16 intel agencies not enough to convince you?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: shooterbrody

Who says Obama's warning had anything to do with connections to Russia? Remember, Flynn had already been fired under Obama.

it was just a hunch?
being fired is not ground for illegal searches

a reply to: shooterbrody

Where's the proof of an illegal search?

By all accounts Flynn did a terrible job when he was heading the DIA. That alone seems to be more than enough to warrant a warning from Obama to Trump. In fact looking at the timeline this seems like a more likely scenario. Flynn was tapped by Trump on November 18th. It was over a month later that Flynn had his call with Kislyak. It really comes down to when Obama warned Trump. But it almost sounds like the warning came before Flynn was even named National Security Adviser. In which case it couldn't have anything to do with Russia.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

If that becomes a part of this mess

Do you really think 16 intel agencies missed this?
Do you think the fbi would have signed off on this if they thought there was ANY evidence of collusion or crime?
Do you think the fbi was the only agency with info on the "cointel" investigation?

what a fn joke

nothing to add about obama admitting he knew about flynn being unmasked even though there IS NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME?

Yes, I think the FBI signed off on an assessment that was limited in scope and put together in a hurry. Again, they're not going to include any evidence from an active, ongoing investigation.

The US IC has been given sensitive intel regarding suspicious contacts between Trump associates & Russians. If that intel became part of the FBI investigation, we aren't going to hear about it in any form until the investigation is complete.

As a matter of policy, Comey was not obligated to tell Clapper about that investigation.

Clapper himself has indicated he's been made privy to more information since that time that is now a part of that investigation.

Regarding Flynn, it is not at all clear that a crime wasn't committed. We don't know the substance of the information that was uncovered regarding his actions and the legal ramifications therein. We do know that he was shopping for an immunity deal. He could very well be facing charges in the future. That aspect of this whole affair is not remotely settled.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

I guess I have to ask how any of us can be so sure about this collusion thing?

The assessment released in an unclassified form last januaray?
or is the opinion of 16 intel agencies not enough to convince you?

Something else to keep in mind here:
The US IC was tasked with assessing whether or not there was an effort by the Russians to interfere w/the election, & both the classified and unclassified reports indicated they did indeed believe this to be the case.

The law enforcement and counterintelligence duties fall squarely within the purview of the FBI, not the IC.
And the FBI is extremely tight-lipped about counterintelligence matters. It doesn't surprise me one bit that they would sign off on that initial assessment while still actively investigating the potential for criminal activity.

a reply to: JinMI

I never watch CNN.
Next....

a reply to: BlueAjah

No it wasn't shown to the DOJ. It was shown to legal council.

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't get the dismissive attitude some have about Russian hacking. It's kind of a big deal.

Probably because we are still waiting on that proof thing.

You are aware of there's an investigation going on. Or do you want the evidence released piece meal and incomplete as they get it?

The fact that there is even enough reason for the FBI to investigate should be alarming enough.

It is alarming. To trump especially. Which is why he tried to discredit Yates, call it a political witch hunt and tries to down play the seriousness by calling it fake news and a hoax. I swear reading his tweets makes me think he's a member here or someone on his staff is.

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
You have no idea what you are talking about. All of the federal courts denying the muslim ban have looked at the intent which was more than exhibited by the Trump Administration on several accounts and is the reason why his EOs are unconstitutional. Them are the facts and intent in many cases of law is paramount on the interpretation of the words.

Again, get an education right wingers.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

SPirit of the Law does not outweigh the WORD of the law. And also She was not a supreme court justice and overstepped her powers.

Im not a right winger. im independent. You cannot prove intent unless the law reflected it. if it was a MUSLIM BAN then ALL MUSLIMS WOULD HAD BEEN TARGETED.

No it is you who are wrong here. And I didnt have to reach for a insult to do so.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't get the dismissive attitude some have about Russian hacking. It's kind of a big deal.

Probably because we are still waiting on that proof thing.

You are aware of there's an investigation going on. Or do you want the evidence released piece meal and incomplete as they get it?

The fact that there is even enough reason for the FBI to investigate should be alarming enough.

It is alarming. To trump especially. Which is why he tried to discredit Yates, call it a political witch hunt and tries to down play the seriousness by calling it fake news and a hoax. I swear reading his tweets makes me think he's a member here or someone on his staff is.

Hmm I wonder....

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm not surprised you have no idea what I'm talking about. You should try getting up to speed before you engage in a conversation you know nothing about.


What Flynn did put the country in jeopardy.
That does mean Jack squat...to a lot of people.
Or are you even denying Flynn spoke with the Russians?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Tapping means picking in this instance. Not actual tapping...
He picked Flynn even though Obama warned him about him.


Hey did you notice how I clarified that without resorting to out of place quotation marks?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: allsee4eye

Good thing for us our constitution covers inalienable HUMAN rights...

People from other countries WHO ARE NOT HERE ON US SOIL OR HER EMBASSIES are not Protected by the constitution. SO banning them from GETTING HERE is not Illegal or against the 14th amendment or that stupid clause.

Thats what they were trying to say i think. So Inaliable rights as long as they GET to the US not before. Their countries laws cover them when they are not in the US.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: allsee4eye

Good thing for us our constitution covers inalienable HUMAN rights...

People from other countries WHO ARE NOT HERE ON US SOIL OR HER EMBASSIES are not Protected by the constitution. SO banning them from GETTING HERE is not Illegal or against the 14th amendment or that stupid clause.

Wrong. And it doesn't become true if you write in caps lock either. The Constitution protects ALL people within or trying to enter the country. Citizen or otherwise. It always has.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Indeed. It's almost comical watching them scramble to explain the 18 days between Yates' briefing and Flynn's dismissal. Those darn leaks!

And now Trump is pointing the finger at Obama where Flynn is concerned. Never mind that Obama fired Flynn as DNI and made a point to warn Trump, who apparently dismissed the warning as some kind of joke, according to aids.

Notice how the WH hasn't had much to say about the ongoing FBI investigation? Would love to be a fly on the wall in those meetings. They must be in a panic to find out what holes they need to plug next.

originally posted by: jordan77

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

SPirit of the Law does not outweigh the WORD of the law. And also She was not a supreme court justice and overstepped her powers.

All that is dynamite, literally has nothing to do with Flynn being compromised by Russia, which was why she was there.

I mean, look, she disobeyed the president's EO, got fired, that's basically the end of the story.

Talking about the Muslim ban in the midst of a hearing to learn more about her warning to the WH counsel is blatant changing the subject. And frankly, concerning that so many want to ignore the National Security Advisor canoodling with the Russians.

Which according to Clapper there was no collusion which means nothing actually happenned. Flynn was a lone wolf so to speak in this case.