Yates and Clapper Testimony Begins

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Your source?

That would be your requirement.
Show me evidence that emails were stolen. The say so of the intelligence community without any evidence does not qualify, so spare me any links to '17 agencies said so'.

a reply to: Gandalf77

you go right ahead and debate the meaning of is

you posted a quote from march and represented it as being made yesterday
then you want to reinterpret what clapper said in that quote because it does not suit your agenda

thats just about all the disingenuous discussion i can handle for one day

a reply to: UKTruth

Show me evidence that emails were stolen.

It is your claim that there is no evidence that emails were stolen. The burden is yours.

The say so of the intelligence community without any evidence does not qualify, so spare me any links to '17 agencies said so'.

Again you say there is no evidence.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Show me evidence that emails were stolen.

It is your claim that there is no evidence that emails were stolen. The burden is yours.

The say so of the intelligence community without any evidence does not qualify, so spare me any links to '17 agencies said so'.

Again you say there is no evidence.

Bizarre. Glad you are not in charge of any courts.

Prosecutor: Your Honour, the accused did it.
Defence attorney : Excuse me, I have not seen any evidence... please can you provide some.
Prosecutor: Prove there is no evidence or your man is guilty!

YOU claimed that emails were stolen.

a reply to: UKTruth

During the hearing, one of the Dems brought up that false "17 agencies question".
He asked... actually he was one who was trying to state things as fact and then get the testimony to verify... he SAID that the report on the hacking was produced by 17 agencies.

Clapper clarified that no, the report was from 3 agencies, and he did not know what other agencies believed or where they got their information from.
Clapper verified that there were not 17 agencies involved in the official investigation, and I doubt that those not officially involved would have all of the information to make an informed decision.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: UKTruth

During the hearing, one of the Dems brought up that false "17 agencies question".
He asked... actually he was one who was trying to state things as fact and then get the testimony to verify... he SAID that the report on the hacking was produced by 17 agencies.

Clapper clarified that no, the report was from 3 agencies, and he did not know what other agencies believed or where they got their information from.
Clapper verified that there were not 17 agencies involved in the official investigation, and I doubt that those not officially involved would have all of the information to make an informed decision.

I missed that, but thanks for pointing it out. Makes a mockery of quite a few on here declaring the "17 agencies" lie ad finitum. We know who they are - the same people peddling the Russian propaganda.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm hardly debating the meaning of 'is."
I'm merely pointing out that he's indicated they didn't include any evidence. You're the one who interpreted the "not to my knowledge" as the equivalent of "it doesn't exist."

I made an honest mistake with respect to the date of that particular quote.
My apologies.

He did acknowledge yesterday that he's been made privy to more information since that report. Again, you don't seem to want to go there.

You seem to think I'm somehow being disingenuous here and trying to push some sort of agenda. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I do find it ironic given what seems like desperate clinging to the conclusion that illusion-of-no-inclusion-must-equal-no-collusion thing.

But let me guess, you have no agenda right? Purely nonpartisan and apolitical right?
Your obtuse defense of that assessment, and refusal to acknowledge a much larger set of facts sounds awfully familiar.
Sure you're not really Spicy in disguise?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

if flynn is the bogeyman the dems want to make him out to be why didnt the all knowing holy barak hussain obmama administration arrest him before they left office?
if he was such a threat to national security why was flynn left to roam free?

It's become quite clear that the Obama administration spied on their political opponents and so far the best they can come up with is that Flynn mentioned sanctions on a phone call to a Russian Ambassador. When the pickings are that slim, it is not a surprise that they needed their media arm (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT et al) to dress it up as something sensational.

As for Obama - remember he had no scandals LOL. Hiding scandals and/or pretending they didn't exist when HE was in office was an art form he perfected.

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: UKTruth

And I'm sure the republicans are so mad about those leaks for purely patriotic purposes.
So honorable.

Hardly. Republicans are just as bad as the democrats. Spoiled children, completely self-obsessed, looking after themselves.

This investigation is only going to expand into the financial dealings Of the Trump WH with Russians.

This is just the beginning, believe me....

www.latimes.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... ?utm_term=.fb91eea61867

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

if flynn is the bogeyman the dems want to make him out to be why didnt the all knowing holy barak hussain obmama administration arrest him before they left office?
if he was such a threat to national security why was flynn left to roam free?

It's become quite clear that the Obama administration spied on their political opponents and so far the best they can come up with is that Flynn mentioned sanctions on a phone call to a Russian Ambassador. When the pickings are that slim, it is not a surprise that they needed their media arm (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT et al) to dress it up as something sensational.

As for Obama - remember he had no scandals LOL. Hiding scandals and/or pretending they didn't exist when HE was in office was an art form he perfected.

We still don't know the substance of the data collected on Flynn and/or his actions.
And then there's the multiple FISA warrants for Carter Page's communications.
There's a whole lot that hasn't come out yet. Pretty hard to honestly draw any solid conclusions.

originally posted by: olaru12
This investigation is only going to expand into the financial dealings Of the Trump WH with Russians.

This is just the beginning, believe me....

www.latimes.com...

www.washingtonpost.com... ?utm_term=.fb91eea61867

LOL, yeah, let's turn the Senate and House into the Alex Jones show. It shows how bad the situation is when long-standing newspapers have resorted to trying to tie murders thousands of miles away on another continent to Trump - in the absence of ANY evidence that supports even the tiniest shred of collusion. But yeah, let's jump to an international murder conspiracy. It's like a high jumper failing twice at 1m and then going for 3m with their final attempt. Makes sense though, with the Russian election collusion drawing its last breaths of credibility, I guess the Dems will need a new conspiracy theory to whip up.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

if flynn is the bogeyman the dems want to make him out to be why didnt the all knowing holy barak hussain obmama administration arrest him before they left office?
if he was such a threat to national security why was flynn left to roam free?

It's become quite clear that the Obama administration spied on their political opponents and so far the best they can come up with is that Flynn mentioned sanctions on a phone call to a Russian Ambassador. When the pickings are that slim, it is not a surprise that they needed their media arm (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT et al) to dress it up as something sensational.

As for Obama - remember he had no scandals LOL. Hiding scandals and/or pretending they didn't exist when HE was in office was an art form he perfected.

We still don't know the substance of the data collected on Flynn's and/or his actions.
And then there's the multiple FISA warrants for Carter Page's communications.
There's a whole lot that hasn't come out yet. Pretty hard to honestly draw any solid conclusions.

You are asking people to believe that after nearly a year of investigations by the IC AND the DoJ pouring over unmasked Trump associates in intelligence documents, against a backdrop of leaking to the press of the slightest miss step by anyone associated to Trump, that something exists but hasn't been made public.

Unlikely, but sure, not impossible.

When asked why Trump keeps defending Flynn, Spicer responded that Trump "won't smear a good man."

Even though that 'good' man was acting against the best interests of his country.

He'll smear John McCain though.

originally posted by: jordan77
When asked why Trump keeps defending Flynn, Spicer responded that Trump "won't smear a good man."

Even though that 'good' man was acting against the best interests of his country.

He'll smear John McCain though.

How was Flynn acting against the best interests of the country again?

Let me see... Lobbying for Turkey - an ally? Going on RT? Getting paid for a speech by Russians? Saying he didn;t talk about sanctions (which is not a problem anyway)...? are these the things that make him a pariah acting against America?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth

if flynn is the bogeyman the dems want to make him out to be why didnt the all knowing holy barak hussain obmama administration arrest him before they left office?
if he was such a threat to national security why was flynn left to roam free?

It's become quite clear that the Obama administration spied on their political opponents and so far the best they can come up with is that Flynn mentioned sanctions on a phone call to a Russian Ambassador. When the pickings are that slim, it is not a surprise that they needed their media arm (CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT et al) to dress it up as something sensational.

As for Obama - remember he had no scandals LOL. Hiding scandals and/or pretending they didn't exist when HE was in office was an art form he perfected.

We still don't know the substance of the data collected on Flynn's and/or his actions.
And then there's the multiple FISA warrants for Carter Page's communications.
There's a whole lot that hasn't come out yet. Pretty hard to honestly draw any solid conclusions.

You are asking people to believe that after nearly a year of investigations by the IC AND the DoJ pouring over unmasked Trump associates in intelligence documents, against a backdrop of leaking to the press of the slightest miss step by anyone associated to Trump, that something exists but hasn't been made public.

Unlikely, but sure, not impossible.

I'm really just suggesting that this hasn't been put to bed yet--certainly not with an active and ongoing FBI investigation that involves FISA warrants, requests for immunity deals, etc. My honest guess is that it's just getting warmed up. I'm willing to bet the strangest chapters are yet to be written with this one. I could very well be wrong, though, and will gladly admit it if/when the time comes.

a reply to: Gandalf77

when more than speculation shows up about any crime committed by the trump campaign, or trump administration please let me know

when the info shows up about who listened in on flynns meetings also please let me know
meeting with foreign ambassadors is not a crime
misspeaking to your boss is not a crime
spying on american citizens without a warrant is a crime
giving out classified information is a crime

a reply to: UKTruth

Defence attorney : Excuse me, I have not seen any evidence... please can you provide some. Prosecutor: Prove there is no evidence or your man is guilty!

What attorney has requested evidence for which trial?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gandalf77

when more than speculation shows up about any crime committed by the trump campaign, or trump administration please let me know

when the info shows up about who listened in on flynns meetings also please let me know
meeting with foreign ambassadors is not a crime
misspeaking to your boss is not a crime
spying on american citizens without a warrant is a crime
giving out classified information is a crime

OK Spicey. Will do.
Sounds like you've got to get to your next press briefing, so remember: If someone says "FISA warrant," that is in fact lawful. Also, if someone in that nasty press corps brings up "incidental collection," it's not a reference to your boss's porn collection. It's actually a lawful process as well.

Ta-ta

a reply to: shooterbrody

Sometimes you have to weed through info and sometimes there's stuff you keep and sometimes there's stuff you discard.
Not pertaining to any particular set of events naturally. Just pointing out that that can be a judicious move not indicating a flaw in reasoning.