There was a 300% increase in unmaskings under the lame duck Obama administration. Why? The onion is being peeled back.
But ultimately what we are allowed to know all depends on who wins the election. Perhaps the Norse were onto something with fate because this isn't free will.
You still haven't responded to several questions in this thread that directly refute your idiotic claims. Just repeating them in another conspiratorial tone won't change the fact that you're dealing with nothing but innuendo, speculation and a violent shove from Right Wing propaganda to get you riled up.
If you didn't have your head so far up Brietbart's ass you'd know that the number of unmaskings increased under Trump. Where is the outrage? None. Why? Because this is normal. There is nothing unusual or sinister about unmasking.
It's been reported that Flynn was never masked in the FBI's reports on their surveillance, which is an interesting blow to the argument put out by Senate Republicans the Obama admin was fishing for links to Trump seeking to have him unmasked so they could go after a Trump team member. If the idea unmasking is equal to leaking classified information to the press is lost, where does the Obamagate misdirection go next?
Isn’t it neat what you can do when you have the power to selectively declassify whatever you want. Every trial lawyer I know would give up a limb to be able to unilaterally decide which evidence the jury gets to hear.
Res Ipsa would you say you are more or less of a legal realist since becoming a lawyer. This isn't a knock on your profession but I found the BS element so thick in legal textbooks that my mind just rejected it and I could scarcely listen to it. It's impossible to predict or understand without knowing the politics. Election results determine right and wrong in so many ways. History is written by the victors.
Oh man, that’s a can of worms I’d be happy to discuss with you, but it would really distract from the thread. I’ll start a new one, and if you’d care to discuss my complicated and probably incoherent answer, let’s do it. It may very well wander into territory other folks are interested in.
It's been reported that Flynn was never masked in the FBI's reports on their surveillance, which is an interesting blow to the argument put out by Senate Republicans the Obama admin was fishing for links to Trump seeking to have him unmasked so they could go after a Trump team member. If the idea unmasking is equal to leaking classified information to the press is lost, where does the Obamagate misdirection go next?
Yeah, undercuts the whole premise. But if Flynn was never masked, what’s the deal with the list of people who they claim asked Flynn to be unmasked.
The funny/idiotic thing about this whole Obamagate BS is that the crime is completely unclear. There's nothing to hang your hat on. Masking? Unmasking?
The only masking people are concerned with these days is whether they should wear one to the grocery store.
A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.
The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
A former judge selected to advise on a path forward in the criminal case against Michael Flynn is accusing the Justice Department of exercising a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” to protect an ally of President Donald Trump, distorting known facts and legal principles to shield Flynn from a jail sentence.
The former federal judge, John Gleeson, skewered Attorney General Bill Barr’s handling of the case, describing it as an “irregular” effort that courts would “scoff” at were the subject anyone other than an ally of Trump. The 82-page excoriation featured a painstaking reconstruction of the Flynn case and accused DOJ of contradicting its own arguments and precedents to justify dropping the case against Flynn.
Damn, that's about the most brutal evaluation of a litigant's behavior that I've read. No wonder some attorneys resigned rather than sign off of the Justice Department's brief. Flynn is guilty as hell, as he freely admitted multiple times under oath. There was no trick. There was no perjury trap. He repeatedly lied to the FBI, even after the agents attempted to refresh his recollection using his own words from the phone calls. All he had to do was tell the truth, and he damn well knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI.
The judge will deny the motion to dismiss. He'll sentence Flynn, with time tacked on for perjury. Then Trump can add his pardon of Flynn to his corruption wall of shame.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951