Clapper and Yates testify on Russia and Flynn

[Mountain Man]

Yep, and Clapper even said that he did not find any connection between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

But according to liberal morons (is there any other kind of liberal?), that's only because it hasn't been investigated enough. Don't worry, Comey will get to the bottom of it!

[T-Shirt Ninja]

Sally Yates burned Ted Cruz yesterday on the immigration issue.

I got a kick out of that. It was ultimately irrelevant to the Russia hearing.

The question still stands: why was Michael Flynn, the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who was definitely compromised by the Russians, kept for several weeks after Trump was warned about him?

[seer]

Sally Yates burned Ted Cruz yesterday on the immigration issue.

What are you talking about - Cruz wiped the floor with her. Especially her false claim of constitutional protections for immigrants who are not yet in this country.

The question still stands: why was Michael Flynn, the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR who was definitely compromised by the Russians, kept for several weeks after Trump was warned about him?

Because Trump liked the guy and was loyal to him?

[T-Shirt Ninja]

What are you talking about - Cruz wiped the floor with her. Especially her false claim of constitutional protections for immigrants who are not yet in this country.

No, she destroyed him with her knowledge of constitutional law. And she was vindicated by federal judges stopping the executive order because it was unconstitutional.

Because Trump liked the guy and was loyal to him?

If that's the case, and Trump isn't a Putin puppet, it at best displays that he is grossly incompetent at his job and his judgment is severely lacking. Either way, it's very, very bad.

[Bill the Cat]

No, she destroyed him with her knowledge of constitutional law. And she was vindicated by federal judges stopping the executive order because it was unconstitutional.

TBH, Ninja, I wouldn't hang my hat on the Obama appointees and their gross mischaracterizations of the travel ban if I were trying to argue against it....

[rogue06]

No, she destroyed him with her knowledge of constitutional law. And she was vindicated by federal judges stopping the executive order because it was unconstitutional.

Judge shopping for compliant judges is not exactly vindication.

An interesting article about what the left's unhinged hatred of Trump has done to the judiciary:

Source: Fake Law

How Trump-hatred warps the judiciaryBrandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech does not permit the government "to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action," it mangles it. What part of "Get 'em out of here" could plausibly be interpreted as advocating illegal activity, rather than a call for the assistance of security officers? Where is the explicit advocacy of illegality?

Brandenburg involved a KKK member advocating on film the possibility of "revengeance" against African Americans and Jews, along with other hateful speech. In an earlier case, Terminiello v. City of Chicago, a rabble-rousing priest whipped up an angry throng to confront an enraged mob, shouting: "[T]here will be violence. .  .  . We will not be tolerant of that mob out there. .  .  . We are going to stand up and dare them to smear us. .  .  . We don't want them here; we want them to go back to where they came from." In both cases, the Supreme Court held that these words were constitutionally protected free speech. Neither what Trump said nor the context of his speech is even in the same universe.

And yet this district court found a way to rule that the president of the United States might be deposed on the question of incitement to criminal violence because Trump had on some other occasions "condoned violence," and because had Trump actually wanted the assistance of security officers to remove the protesters, "Trump would have instructed the intervening audience members to stop what they were doing."



Source

© Copyright Original Source

The article continues at the above link.

[seer]

No, she destroyed him with her knowledge of constitutional law. And she was vindicated by federal judges stopping the executive order because it was unconstitutional.

That is just stupid - where does the Constitution say that immigrants not on American soil have constitutional protections? And many Federal judges have no regard for the Constitution, so that is a wash. So again, please show me these constitutional protections for non-citizens not on American soil. Be specific please.

[Mountain Man]

No, she destroyed him with her knowledge of constitutional law.

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

But it's sort of like saying that a baseball really put the hurt on the bat that just knocked it out of the park.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Source: Breitbart

It does not change the fact that Cruz was completely correct, and Yates was completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...z-sally-yates/

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

So let me get this right, the Obama administration was tapping Trump's communications.

No, that's not right, and Sparko whom you're relying on for that claim is wrong as usual.

They were tapping the Russian Ambassador. In the course of tapping foreign entities when those foreign entities interact with Americans, the names of the Americans get 'masked' by the person writing the transcript and replaced with "American 17" or whatever, so that other people in the intelligence agency who read the transcript don't breach the privacy rights of Americans.

Clapper was asked if he, at any point, requested a name to get unmasked, i.e. requested to know the real name of the person labeled "American 17" in the transcript. He said "yes", he had done so with an associate of Trump. Presumably that was with Michael Flynn.

Basically what it comes down to is that the intelligence agencies were investigating possible treason... and the Republicans are pretending for political purposes to be really really worried about the fact that the intelligence agencies might have breached some privacy rights of Michael Flynn because Clapper might have seen Flynn's name on the transcript rather than seeing only "American 17". It's kind of disgusting and sad that the Republican party has fallen so low that they're playing a game of "treason's not important and not worth talking about, a breach of a single American's privacy rights and the Director of National Intelligence seeing an American's name is the real crime here!" It's sad you guys here have fallen for it.

[seer]

No, that's not right, and Sparko whom you're relying on for that claim is wrong as usual.

They were tapping the Russian Ambassador. In the course of tapping foreign entities when those foreign entities interact with Americans, the names of the Americans get 'masked' by the person writing the transcript and replaced with "American 17" or whatever, so that other people in the intelligence agency who read the transcript don't breach the privacy rights of Americans.

Clapper was asked if he, at any point, requested a name to get unmasked, i.e. requested to know the real name of the person labeled "American 17" in the transcript. He said "yes", he had done so with an associate of Trump. Presumably that was with Michael Flynn.

Basically what it comes down to is that the intelligence agencies were investigating possible treason... and the Republicans are pretending for political purposes to be really really worried about the fact that the intelligence agencies might have breached some privacy rights of Michael Flynn because Clapper might have seen Flynn's name on the transcript rather than seeing only "American 17". It's kind of disgusting and sad that the Republican party has fallen so low that they're playing a game of "treason's not important and not worth talking about, a breach of a single American's privacy rights and the Director of National Intelligence seeing an American's name is the real crime here!" It's sad you guys here have fallen it.

Well in the hearing Clapper was asked if Trump and his associates were ever unmasked - he said yes. So it is not clear that they were only speaking of Flynn being unmasked, just the opposite. And tapping a foreign national to get at an American citizen is child's play. And again, in all this the only law that we know was broken was when Flynn's name was leaked to the Washington Post.

[rogue06]

I suppose that's one way of putting it.

But it's sort of like saying that a baseball really put the hurt on the bat that just knocked it out of the park.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

Source: Breitbart

It does not change the fact that Cruz was completely correct, and Yates was completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...z-sally-yates/

© Copyright Original Source

I think the fact that the networks downplayed coverage of the exchange is indicative of who they thought came out on top.