Susan Rice Ordered the Unmasking of the Trump Team
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If it had qualified then the people who had been trained to investigate would have been the ones to do the unmasking.
One person who would know would be James Clapper, Former Director of National Intelligence, says that "there wasn't evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump earlier this year."
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pre...llusion-between-trump-and-russia-890509379597
I've already responded to this line of reasoning and you haven't offered a substantive response, so go back and answer me, or I conclude we're at an impasse.
That's earlier this year, and it can change. The FBI says it's investigating something. Time will tell if anything comes of it.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
How do we know that Susan Rice is telling a lie about Bowe Bergdahl?
She is moving her lips:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/susan-rice-bergdahl-served-with-honor-and-distinction/article/794066
She is moving her lips:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/susan-rice-bergdahl-served-with-honor-and-distinction/article/794066
"President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, said on ABC that Bowe Bergdahl 'served the United States with honor and distinction' and that 'Sergeant Bergdahl wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.'
tapping my phones, tapp my phones,"wire tapping" - unable to provide proof, "wire tapping" has morphed to "unmasking" surveillance of any kind
President Obama, a sitting President -after being repudiated by the FBI, the narrative then changed to British intelligence and now Susan Rice
the very sacred election process -"The Donald" characterized it as a "rigged election" prior to being elected, after which it suddenly became "sacred"
my phones - Trump Towers has been expanded to anywhere and anyone associated with Trump
prior to an election, in October, just prior to Election! -has changed to anytime before and/or after the Election
President Trump could have this issue resolved immediately by demanding that all intercepts be made available to the congressional committees - he won't because either they don't exist or he doesn't want it resolved.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-obama-wiretap-allegation-1.4010163
Last edited:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
I did answer you. Instead, you did not respond to what I said:
It is entirely possible and even likely that the American would say something which would make it plain that he was representing Trump!
Again, it is entirely possible and even likely that the report in front of her would provide evidence that according to the American's own words he was representing Trump.
Don't count your chickens before they hatch. And why are you so disinterested in the part of the investigation that has revealed that a crime did take place?
Don't put all your eggs in one basket
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are we supposed to believe that the "information" and "intelligence" spoken of in the following video interview with former FBI Assistant Director Evelyn Farkas had nothing to do with surveillance of the Trump team?:
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette...posed-conspiracy-cabal-on-trump-surveillance/
“It was more actually aimed at telling the [Capitol] Hill people, ‘Get as much information as you can and get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration,’ because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left,” she said. “So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy.”
Just in case there was any ambiguity, Farkas made clear her concern was the incoming Trump administration.
“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the staff, the Trump staff’s dealings with Russians, that they would try to compromise these sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” she said. “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out in the open, and I knew that there was more.”
She added, “That’s why you have the leaking. People are worried.”
Just in case there was any ambiguity, Farkas made clear her concern was the incoming Trump administration.
“The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the staff, the Trump staff’s dealings with Russians, that they would try to compromise these sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence,” she said. “So I became very worried because not enough was coming out in the open, and I knew that there was more.”
She added, “That’s why you have the leaking. People are worried.”
The man is definitely a head case, the FBI's Behavioral Profiling people would have much to base all sorts of mentally unstable head case conclusions on.
He pulled that exact two-fer, back when Ivanna (his first wife) discovered he was cheating on her with the woman he would end up marrying (almost immediately after Ivanna sent the overly self-absorbed loser packing).
On the one had, he continued to deny and hide the obvious.
On the other, he would feed the press about said scandal...himself.
Why?
Because it kept his name out there, he later explained.
To say the least, the man is ever a fascinating head case.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
That too!
In Trump's case - backing up out of the frying pan, and straight into the roaring fire.
In short, your golden boy's goose...is cooked :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, he is cooking with gas, just laughing about how those in the Obama administration shot themselves in the foot!
You know, the gang who couldn't shoot straight!
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
He just did that very thing!
glorydaz
Well-known member
They're a laugh a minute. There is no evidence..... Since when do they care about evidence? :chuckle:
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
All they care about is the FAKE evidence, the evidence which they have been manufacturing since this whole thing began. And they had to break the law to get that done. With these jerks the end justifies the means!
Speaking of that phrase, I just saw the movie version of that book: The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
DeNiro is in it. He took the part when he lost out on playing Sonny Corleone to James Caan, in The Godfather.
I wanted to see DeNiro that early in his work, as I've always been fascinated by the end result of his now famous extensive research into revealing personality through behavior.
He was great. Very nuanced, as much of his earlier work was.
The movie, however, was bore...ing! Lol
DavidK
New member
If an administration was getting evidence through the intelligence agencies that an incoming administration was crooked, shouldn't they do everything they can to preserve that evidence from cover up when the newcomers get into office?
I'm speaking hypothetically here. I know people are going to argue that there isn't evidence, that it's fake evidence, all that, but it seems like people feel that even if the evidence of corruption was real, it's somehow wrong for the prior administration to try and keep it from being covered up by the incoming one.
I'm speaking hypothetically here. I know people are going to argue that there isn't evidence, that it's fake evidence, all that, but it seems like people feel that even if the evidence of corruption was real, it's somehow wrong for the prior administration to try and keep it from being covered up by the incoming one.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Legally! The end does not justify the means.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The most over-rated actor of all time. Speaking of his earlier movies, did you see "Cape Fear"? I have never heard such a fake accent in my life. He should have had better sense to try to follow in the footsteps of a really great actor--Robert Mitchum. Mitchum's acting put DeNiros's to shame!
Mitchum "was one of four actors (with Jack Nicholson, Bette Davis, and Faye Dunaway) to have two villainous roles ranked in the American Film Institute's 100 years of The Greatest Heroes and Villains, as Max Cady in Cape Fear (1962) at #28 and as Reverend Harry Powell in The Night of the Hunter (1955) at #29."
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000053/bio
DavidK
New member
It's legal for the National Security Adviser to ask that names be unmasked.