(04-09-2017, 02:43 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not, it is not.  And you're using fake news to justify fake opinions. (and I hate that term, but it's short-hand for "full of shit").  We'll just ignore how you dodged all the other pertinent questions in my original post.

Either there is evidence to support collusion, or there has been an abuse of govt surveillance power.  Increasingly, there does not appear to be a middle ground.

International corporations deal with many nations.  That's not evidence of anything.  It's actually typical of the "anti-science" crowd to make a faux stand on complete bullshit.

(04-09-2017, 10:10 PM)Dill Wrote: As I have argued elsewhere, it is better to use the term "fake news" to refer to fake news, rather than simply news we don't like. Fake news as a descriptive term originated as a description of sites which were not news sites presenting stories which were utterly fabricated, like the Pizzeria fronting for child sex trafficking.  "Liberal" media are holding this line. Trump, Fox and friends are not.

And I reject your either/or. If it is revealed that Susan Rice noticed a pattern of communication and asked that certain names be unmasked, likely with no idea who they were beforehand, I do not see how she is not doing her job.  She was on OBama's NSC.

It is quite possible that there is neither collusion nor abuse of power. But at the moment, if there is smoke and then more smoke, then I as a citizen want some answers. What were all these Trump functionaries talking to Russians about at a time when the Russians were attacking our election process? 

I am surprised you dismiss all this as "international corporations dealing with many nations."  How many of the Clinton organization met with the Russian Ambassador during the last election cycle? Why is the fact that Carter Paige was regarded as a Russian asset just "bullshit"?  The unstable Flynn was taking money from an undeclared interest in Turkey, and lied to Pence about his conversation with the Russian Ambassador about lifting sanctions. "International corporations" generally do not correctly predict that high level DNC functionaries are "going down."

It is not clear really what you are doubting, or at least the grounds your are doubting. Do you say the Russians never interfered with the US election? Do you say they made no effort to sway the election in favor of Trump? Do you answer both questions in the affirmative, but still say all these connections between Trumpsters and Russia are random, typical communications?

Nothing to see there, but guilt all over Rice . . . somehow?

(04-09-2017, 11:52 AM)Dill Wrote: Remember that the US is a democracy

(04-09-2017, 11:52 AM)Dill Wrote: and votes, not intelligence or degrees or whatever are the final arbiter of who gets into office. We have many politicians even at the national level who may know some things (e.g., be good businessmen), but still don't have much statecraft. Bush knew how to leverage taxpayer money into a baseball stadium which enabled him to sell his team at great profit. Then he broke Iraq with no intention to "nation build." If you followed Trey Gowdy and the Benghazi witch hunt, you know that rational, non-partisan behavior is a risk for many Congressmen.

(04-09-2017, 11:52 AM)Dill Wrote: I continue to present this all as hypothesis. It will be somewhat confirmed if this time next week, we will are all talking about utterly new unforced errors and baffling diplomatic moves with unforeseeable consequences, which no one can quite believe.

(04-09-2017, 11:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would just like to add if Susan Rice knew the names of the people talking to the Russians there would be no need for her to ask for their names and thus no smoking gun for Nunes to leak to the media on behalf of Trump to move the media attention away from from false wire tapping claim and onto the fake news story about Susan Rice which JustWin Baby swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Fish on!

(04-10-2017, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people are conflating unmasking with leaking, which is just not at all accurate. The attention being pointed at Rice in this instance is based on ignorance of a very routine process.

(04-09-2017, 11:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I would just like to add if Susan Rice knew the names of the people talking to the Russians there would be no need for her to ask for their names and thus no smoking gun for Nunes to leak to the media on behalf of Trump to move the media attention away from from false wire tapping claim and onto the fake news story about Susan Rice which JustWin Baby swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Fish on!

(04-09-2017, 10:10 PM)Dill Wrote: And I reject your either/or. If it is revealed that Susan Rice noticed a pattern of communication and asked that certain names be unmasked, likely with no idea who they were beforehand, I do not see how she is not doing her job.  She was on OBama's NSC.

(04-10-2017, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think a lot of people are conflating unmasking with leaking, which is just not at all accurate. The attention being pointed at Rice in this instance is based on ignorance of a very routine process.

(04-12-2017, 04:56 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: She lied, again.  Unequivocally, unobjectionably true.  She lied.

Nothing partisan about it, just a fact.  An "inconvenient truth", if you will.

(04-12-2017, 04:58 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're making a number of assumptions in claiming the unmasking was routine.

(04-12-2017, 06:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: How so? (I really don't know.)

(04-12-2017, 04:58 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You're making a number of assumptions in claiming the unmasking was routine.

(04-12-2017, 10:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's not as black and white as some would like you to believe. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/07/context-did-susan-rice-lie-about-unmasking-trump-a/

Only really a fact to those that don't understand the meaning of the word.

(04-12-2017, 11:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah it might be somewhat gray, but after knowing what to look for I have to admit that I would rather use the word lie than not if I had to break it down. She quite openly said she "knows nothing about this" regarding Trump team unmaskings. If the sources (anonymous ones, which both sides claim is problematic somehow) that say she did know and ask for unmasking are correct, she lied there. The interest might not have been political, but investigational, all that is granted, but well... for me, it still constitutes a lie.

I applied the same criteria with Sessions. - What means, whoever calls Rice liar because of this must, of course, also call Sessions a liar under oath and Trump a pathological liar. Wouldn't be coherent any other way.

(04-12-2017, 12:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: She was asked if their names had been disclosed. She replied she didn't know nothing about that. Disclosing a name inappropriately to someone not authorized for that info is not the same as askling for a person's name in a report as part of the normal functions of the NSA. It's the same as a military intelligence officer asking for a redacted name in an intel report.

Whose names were disclosed?  Who disclosed the names?  To whom were the names disclosed?  For what nefarious political purpose were the names disclosed?

If Nunes name was "unmasked" by Rice because he was speaking with a Russian who was being spied upon by the CIA, the American public didn't learn about it until after Nunes publicly disclosed that information after the Trump administration leaked the information to Nunes to take the heat if of them regarding the false wire tapp claims IOT start an "unmasking" scandal.

(04-12-2017, 12:11 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, that's semantics, and you beat me to it, of course. But when asked about "were names disclosed", it seems quite clear that it's not about what the public learned, but which names were unmasked. For me it was clear, I thought about that word "disclosed" and reached that conclusion. To me, you seem to argue that "disclosed" equals "disclosed inappropriately to someone not authorized", and that is a whole other topic and not what the question seemed to be aimed at.

But you might be right as well. I will argue, however, that it's not overly unreasonable to argue that it was a lie. I myself don't care and don't think it matters in the bigger picture.

(04-12-2017, 12:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In that conversation disclose equals leak. Did Rice leak names to the public. As far as we know, no. Did she ask to know redacted names, yes.

Again, if she knew the names were Trump's people there would be no need to ask for the name and thus no smoking gun for the Trump administration to leak publicly via Nunes to start an unmasking scandal. If the names aren't Trump's people and the info isn't handled inappropriately there's no scandal to take the heat off Trump's wire tap claim. Remember this is the info which made Trump feel "somewhat" vindicated about the wire tap claim despite the fact it literal doesn't support anything he claimed.

(04-12-2017, 12:55 PM)hollodero Wrote: I see the point. I read the question an additional five times now, and maybe your interpretation is right. But I still rather think it's not, given her clarification afterwards that can be read in Belsnickel's link. 

"But he said whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens. [...]" (No referrence to leaks.)

And if that is what she was talking about, she can't quite say "I know nothing about this" when asked "that he [Trump] and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?" - I don't see that "disclosed" automatically means "leaked" there, and nothing within the question or the response indicates it does. If she read the question with "leaked", wouldn't the answer be a different one? -- But whatever. My language skills are not sufficient to really determine that. I just argue that whoever says this is not truthful does have some ground to stand on and isn't just crazy.

I do fully acknowledge the whole glasshouse and stone situation surrounding the "other side" argueing this. I just try to keep it real and call a duck a duck, regardless of the duck's color.