Well liberals consider ALL Conservatives and Republicans to be an imminent danger to the US..they prefer us all to be wiped off the planet so their Commie agenda can be implemented
Trump was an imminent threat to the progressives of the Uniparty.
You mean, like when Clinton OK'd the transfer of dual-use technology for missile guidance from Loral to China when he needed money for his second term re-election campaign?
What color uniform will we wear in this civil war?
Wait up, Suze, you mean like you and WJC and Loral Aerospace and China-type selling stuff? That *would* be a problem.
Bump!
They've set up an intellectual context in which those who believe in Capitalism and freedom are (a) the reason for all the ills of humanity, and (b) going to destroy civilization, and the Earth itself. Naturally, since the United States is situated on the surface of the earth, Trump is a threat to the United States.
This is literally true. All you have to do is listen to what they say.
Sure they were. It’s pretty clear why the Dems have invested themselves so thoroughly into this BS Russia narrative. Once Trump won, they needed a cover story to justify their illegal activities.
Calling John Brennan to the witness stand. Sir, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
Calling James Clapper to the witness stand. Sir, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
Calling Loretta Lynch to the witness stand. Madame, was there legal justification (national security) to unmask Trump and his associates and if so, why did you not request that it be done?
That girl and people believing her Bs are batsht crazy
I want to see her locked up.
Not her call. There is an entire division of trained investigators who make these determinations. This is not in her area of expertise or responsibility. She is a political appointee, not a bureaucrat charged with responsibility for assessing issues of national security. Her actions are clearly in violation of federal law.
That would not be difficult to verify. Any transcript or report is linked to an intercept with unique identifying metadata - the ONLY way to access one intercept among hundreds(?) of petabytes of data.
... BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE SMARTER AND MORE QUALIFIED THAN ‘THE PEOPLE’?...
We wouldn't like it if the Russians did that... or the thugs in Venezuela. No less the Brits. But that's what our 'elites' have done...
Our thugs are no different - no better - AND just as big a threat.
As much as it pains us, and as much as we wish to see liars prosecuted, we must look at this objectively-
[[Susan Rice is a liar. We need to establish that as the baseline.]]
Yes we all know she is- but beign a liar doesn’t automatically make one guilty of a felony- Breaking federal laws makes one a felon- Can they establish that she broke a specific federal law and committed a felony?
[[The thing to bear in mind is that the White House does not do investigations.]]
She didn’t do the investigation- She simply ordered the unmasking at the behest of intel community (Melissa Zimmerman and Adam Hoiwsley made that claim last night on BOR)
—It Appears— at this point, that ‘protocol was followed’, and although her actions may have ‘violated established government policy’ but violating policy doesn’t necessarily lead to a title of felony-
I’ll post my previous post here because it all boils down ot one simple concept- “Did she actually break specific law herself, If so, did it rise to the level of felony?”
It sucks that she may skate- but she may very well because it is unclear that she actually broke the law- UNLESS they can directly link her to leaking the classified info- which is ifnact a very specific crime- provable crime- then unfortunately it looks like she covered her bases in order to avoid prosecution - Here’s what i wrote earlier- It’s a little long, but it boils it down to it’s basic premise- all this other stuff folks are talking about is wandering in the weeds- the basic question that needs ot be answered is this “Did Susan rice herself break any law?”, and at this point, it appears n ot- Was what she did unethical? You betcha- Was it political? Absolutely- but good luck proving that- Here’s what was psoted-
[[(2) Did you sign this at the direction of someone, or on your own accord?]]
It appears at this point that it was at the behest of the intel community-
[[Ergo, if Rice is on-record as having signed the log to review secure documents, she can neither claim 5A or Exec-Privilege.]]
She won’t have to- it will be the burden of the prosecution to prove that it was done for political reasons and not for an actual investigative reason (doesn’t matter what the reason for hte investigation is- that is a non issue- the left are claiming it was for determining a connection to russia- but that is just a distraction- the left —will— come up with a number of reasons to justify their ‘concerns’ (false concerns) that led them to order the unmasking)
in my previous post- i laid out how i understand the process to work- (again, i could be wrong- I’m not up on these things really- just going on basic info I’ve heard)
According ot Melissa Zimmerman- it appears that there is info coming out that she did these things, through ‘proper channels’ at the behest of the intel community
King from NY was just on right now and said the info dissemination was ‘either illegal, contrary to government policy’
The sticking point in all this- the key point is this- Was it actually illegal or not? Being simply ‘contrary to government policy’ is meaningless as it is not against the law to be ‘contrary to gov policy’-
The dissemination —Must be-— illegal in order to convict someone like rice directly- IF the order to unmask can even be proven to have come solely from her-
The fact is- rice and obama were not dumb- they were very very sneaky, And they have very very sneaky scummy lawyers advising them the whole way on how to avoid being directly implicated in anything- They very likely covered their tracks pretty thoroughly-
But we’ll see how thoroughly soon- hopefully this gets exposed wide open-
Reminded me of what Andrew McCarthy said on Levin last night, that Rice escalated the unmasking prior to and after the election and his gut told him this wasn't the first time this happened. Rice had the system down in that she would call or email NSA, if she had any trouble, would do a Hillary fit, talk to the higher ups, and get what he wanted. I think it was McCarthy or his other guest that said it appeared that this was a well oiled process.
Who else were they following? Who else was unmasked?
In case you missed them, two good articles by McCarythy:
Susan Rice’s White House Unmasking: A Watergate-style Scandal
On Susan Rice, the Issue Is Abuse of Power, Not Criminality
He pretty much nails it. Waiting for the investigation and congressional hearings to start. Go Trey Gowdy! Go Jeff Sessions!
The timeline does not seem to support Rice’s allegation of Trump and aides being an imminent threat, because the surveillance apparently began just a short time after Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.
How could he have been perceived as a threat when every media, pundit, commentator, other GOP candidates, etc., were saying he would be out by October 2015?
Conversely, if Trump and aides were preceived as an imminent threat [based on what?], what other GOP candidates were also being serveyed as being imminent threats?
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Recall a few years earlier how Maxine Waters was bragging about the database Obama had on EVERYONE.
They want all conservatives and Christians in the Alaskan elephant pen.
"This is why a “high crime and misdemeanor” — the constitutional standard for impeachment — need not be an indictable criminal offense. It may be a chargeable crime, but it need not be one."
"The impeachment allegation went on to describe how Nixon had, among other things, directed the FBI, CIA, and IRS to investigate innocent Americans for reasons unrelated to national security or law enforcement. For the most part, these directives were not violations of penal statutes. But they were, individually and collectively, heinous abuses of presidential power warranting impeachment."
Can Congress impeach Obama in absentia? Or at least somehow get it on record in Congress the huge abuse of power followed by some law changes, the legalese referencing Obama's abuse of power.
Her
UP!!!