Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Da Geezer]

Lordy, DSL, you have presented me with a target-rich environment!!

Let's start with:

Unmasking citizens WITHOUT LEGAL CAUSE and leaking classified materials are crimes and should be investiagted. The unmasking of Flynn is NOT more serious than the fact that he was potentially a paid foreign agent of Turkey without notifying anyone. The Army said today that they have no records of him ever notifying them.

The first part is easy. Your emphasized phrase "WITHOUT LEGAL CAUSE" is a qualifier designed to somehow bootstrap that which is patently illegal in every circumstance as it pertains to incidental/accidental surveillance of a US citizen, into some sort of equivalence with legal conduct. Adding an adjective doesn't change the law. If you claim there was a warrant, then let's see it.

But you go further and say that "The unmasking of Flynn is NOT more serious than the fact that he was potentially a paid foreign agent of Turkey without notifying anyone". In that one sentence you:
1. Make some sort of judgment as to the relative seriousness of an illegal act with some other legal act with absolutely no proof of the nefariousness of the legal act and
2. As important, "the fact that he was potentially a paid foreign agent..." is how you start your criminal allegation. So was he a foreign agent or wasn't he a foreign agent? And, even if we assume everything you say is true vis Turkey, for which there is no proof, what is wrong with representing a NATO ally? I thought we were talking about Russia.

Fact: Gen. Flynn was inadvertently picked up on NSA surveillance of a Russian.
Fact: Flynn's name was unmasked (which is illegal since Flynn is a US citizen)
Fact: The unmasked transcript was leaked to the press (another illegal act)

And those are the only two criminal activities we currently know about. You can add the adjective "legal" to anything you choose, but that is just to make you feel good about what you have written. On one side we have actual, proven illegal behavior. On the other, we have rampant and totally unproven allegations about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians attempting to "hack the election".

[froot loops]

Unmasking is not necessarily illegal because Flynn was a US citizen. I'm not sure you have the chops to speak about this.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It's not illegal to unmask US citizens. How many times do we have to go over this? A number of people have the authority to do so. It would be illegal if someone did the unmasking without having that authority or receiving

Your statement suggests that unmasking a US citizen is illegal under any and all circumstances. Untrue.

[froot loops]

Sally Yates had the clearance to unmask, we that the FBI questioned Flynn about those calls and Sally Yates told the White House on 1/26 to tell them Flynn had lied about the call. Boom, who knows where the leak came from, it doesn't really matter, but it's not out of question that someone in the White House leaked it. The place under Trump is a sieve.

[hack]

How many times do we have to go over this?

As many as possible. This place is like the campaign trail for Geezer, it seems -- repeat bullshit as if there's a vote at stake.

[Wild Hoss]

So, the only remaining argument is whether the House is going to drag this shitty seven-years-in-the-making bill out on the floor to give it a public execution, or just dump the body out back without ceremony. Well done fellas.

Outside of congress ramming through pre-assembled legislation handed to them by industry lobbyists, the governing by our new GOP majority has pretty much been a goatfuck. But, they're still new to it I suppose.

[Da Geezer]

Read my post. I'm presuming no underlying warrant, which is to say I'm assuming NSA surveillance under 12333. I've said that multiple times.

I did call a friend from the old days, and he said that unmasking is also a function of the foreign intelligence obtained. Unmasking is not illegal if it is "essential" (his word) to making sense of what the targeted foreigner is saying or if knowing the name of the US citizen shed light on the interpretation of the intelligence. I didn't ask about Yates, so I don't know, but she is FBI not NSA. So I stand corrected in that unmasking Flynn could have been necessary to interpret the foreign intelligence.

As pertains to leaking, he said that leaking classified material was always a crime. BUT, things that are untrue, by definition, cannot be classified. So the ideal defense to a charge of leaking classified material to the press would be to simply prove the material was false. So, leaking anything about collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government attempting to show the Russians were trying to elect Trump is perfectly legal to leak because it is untrue.

[Da Geezer]

So, the only remaining argument is whether the House is going to drag this shitty seven-years-in-the-making bill out on the floor to give it a public execution, or just dump the body out back without ceremony. Well done fellas.

Shoot it down and get on with the tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

[froot loops]

Read my post. I'm presuming no underlying warrant, which is to say I'm assuming NSA surveillance under 12333. I've said that multiple times.

I did call a friend from the old days, and he said that unmasking is also a function of the foreign intelligence obtained. Unmasking is not illegal if it is "essential" (his word) to making sense of what the targeted foreigner is saying or if knowing the name of the US citizen shed light on the interpretation of the intelligence. I didn't ask about Yates, so I don't know, but she is FBI not NSA. So I stand corrected in that unmasking Flynn could have been necessary to interpret the foreign intelligence.

As pertains to leaking, he said that leaking classified material was always a crime. BUT, things that are untrue, by definition, cannot be classified. So the ideal defense to a charge of leaking classified material to the press would be to simply prove the material was false. So, leaking anything about collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russian government attempting to show the Russians were trying to elect Trump is perfectly legal to leak because it is untrue.

I didn't say you spoke of Yates, it came up in the testimony from Comey. Yates had authority to unmask as well as a bunch of other people. Gowdy and Comey had an exchange on it. It doesn't matter if you are FBI or another agency. If you had clearance to unmask something g, you can get it if it pertains to some investigation. Read up.

[Dr. Strangelove]

These tweets from Newt...LOL

[ame]https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/845345496751329285[/ame]

[Wild Hoss]

They chose the latter, wisely.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump says that "But in a way, I'm glad I got it [healthcare] out of the way"

He wants nothing to do with this anymore

Oh, and he says its all the Dems fault

[Wild Hoss]

He can say whatever he wants, but at the end of the day he's giving up on pillar campaign promise, and his rep as The Great Dealmaker took a huge and very public hit amidships.

And now, off to Florida I suspect.

[hack]

Tax reform is next, according to the sequencing they've announced.

If they thought this turned out to be harder than anyone ever imagined...

[CGVT]

68 times during the campaign he promised to repeal and replace Obama with something great that everyone will love.