Michael Flynn sentencing delayed as judge tells ex-Trump official: 'You sold your country out'

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And in that spirit, what is the 4th Amendment for if there is no legal recourse?

agreed

To be fair, though, if there is the suspicion that a citizen may be acting as a foreign agent for another government, that is an exception to the policy of "minimization" (masking).

I don't really have an issue with the handful of government officials having the ability to unmask conversations as someone needs to be looking at this. I do have a problem with "sharing" this with no warrant. If there is an issue, or a crime has been committed, getting a warrant should not be an issue. There was no warrant sought on flynn. With no warrant none of his conversation should have been shared with anyone.

Note that it specifies that non-procedural unmasking isn't a criminal offense and would fall under administrative punishment instead. Not all agencies have the same "minimization" and unmasking policies, either, so that makes it even harder to figure out.

again it is not the unmasking that is an issue with me; the people with that level of access have to be trusted.
in this case that "unmasked" information made its way to the washington post and the fbi, neither of which should have had it.
the fact that a united states citizen has been prosecuted and plead guilty to a charge obtained by leaked classified information that was then used in a non procedural interview is disgusting and should give all of us pause.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

so you submit that the ic can listen in to american citizens phone calls and with no warrant and no crime committed "share" the contents of said call with the fbi?
sorry
that is expressly forbidden a felony and punishable by a 10000 fine and 5 years in jail

if they can listen to anyone anytime and share with whoever they like what is the FISA warrant for?

Extorris just comes here to troll for entertainment...don't let them goad you into an adult conversation.

LOL

No worries, I have had no success goading him into an adult conversation.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

I don't really have an issue with the handful of government officials having the ability to unmask conversations as someone needs to be looking at this. I do have a problem with "sharing" this with no warrant.

Apart from the law not operating on what shooterbrody has issue with, I have a brain teaser for you:

How is a warrant applied for or issued if they don't know the identity of the person?

And while your brain is juggling that conundrum, it might also be useful to remember at the time they interviewed Flynn they did not have transcripts, that is why the interviewer did not file a 302 saying Flynn was lying.

Do you think Flynn subsequently getting fired for lying to the Vice President about the calls would warrant the FBI requesting and receiving the transcripts from the IC?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

Of course, leaking the name of an unmasked person is a crime, but the unmasking itself is not criminal.

Correct.

a reply to: Phage

The doctored 302s 7 months later sure.

a reply to: Extorris

And while your brain is juggling that conundrum, it might also be useful to remember at the time they interviewed Flynn they did not have transcripts, that is why the interviewer did not file a 302 saying Flynn was lying.

you should read the questions asked before you posted this
they asked pointed questions about the conversation
they stepped in it big time

a reply to: shooterbrody

Less than honest...... no honey..... I am always honest...
You simply do not agree with me. That doesnt make me dishonest...
grow up

a reply to: shooterbrody

Dude they were listening to Kisliak.... and that is legal.....
Tough you dont agree but you dont write the laws.

a reply to: shooterbrody

He did not because he wanted Flynn to cooperate. Which he did and will continue to at least for the next three months.

Mueller is now expected to file his report in Mid to late February.

a reply to: shooterbrody

They were spying on Kisliak from the getgo... they are still monitoring the Russian embassy. Still listening today.
You are just making stuff up now. It is not illegal. And Flynn was making dirty deals on trumps behalf.
Going
.......D
.........O
...........W
.............N

BLOOP BLOOP BLOOP

a reply to: Extorris

Where did you pull that out of?

The back forty....

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Dude they were listening to Kisliak.... and that is legal.....
Tough you dont agree but you dont write the laws.

it is
sharing flynns portion of the conversation is not, sharing flynns name in reference to that was not as no crime was committed

the conversation was not illegal no matter how much you pretend it is
the fbi never should have had that conversation
what happens when cops illegally obtain evidence?
what is even funnier is all they got is a fara violation and a process crime from evidence they should never have had
NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM
what was the "investigation" for again
nothing that connects to trump either
some big win for your dirty cops and former administration

a reply to: shooterbrody

Again.... I laugh.... dude you just dont know...

a reply to: shooterbrody

well you know what they say about opinions no matter how humble they may be.... LOL

Your opinion is incorrect...

Because there are checks and balances and lots and lots of people looking over all of this and they did not allow any illegal activity to occur. You just want to believe they did because its all going south for trump and you need to give him an excuse and an out.

a reply to: shooterbrody

well you know what they say about opinions no matter how humble they may be.... LOL

Your opinion is incorrect...

Because there are checks and balances and lots and lots of people looking over all of this and they did not allow any illegal activity to occur. You just want to believe they did because its all going south for trump and you need to give him an excuse and an out.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Again.... I laugh.... dude you just dont know...

its cool
I laugh every time you post as trump still resides in the white house
I will laugh even more when the bs investigation finds no "collusion with russia"
Flynn should not have lied but the justification of getting that process crime win by the corrupt fbi and corrupt mueller investigation is rotten
You cheering for that rottenness is not unexpected
happy winter solstice witchipoo

a reply to: shooterbrody

but Flynn was making deals with Russia that he couldnt back. He was in no position to and he was also telling them not to sweat the new sanctions imposed by Obama because trump was going to un do them.
Yates was very alarmed by what she heard and she went to the top to advise them that he need to be stopped immediately. That what he was doing was illegal. and then he lied about it.... to the VP to the FBI...
he lied...
Then he got Mueller as a best friend who never leaves never stops calling...

a reply to: shooterbrody

They were not listening to Flynn they were listening to Kisliak.... Flynn called him.

a reply to: shooterbrody

It wasnt illegal for him to talk to him....what they discussed was.
Why do you keep pretending you know more than the authorities know and you know their jobs better than they do?
And then make it up if you dont know.

a reply to: Sillyolme

but Flynn was making deals with Russia that he couldnt back.

not true
not illegal
not grounds to release a conversation of a protected us citizen
they definitely should not have leaked it to the press

He was in no position to and he was also telling them not to sweat the new sanctions imposed by Obama because trump was going to un do them.

again not illegal
just because you dont like it does not make it illegal
just because you dont understand the process does not make it illegal either