Get back to me when you find out what 'unmasking' actually means.Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 1:40 pm » wrote:As usual you ignore the felonies to dishonestly try to mis-direct attention away from them.
The felonies are the leaks, psycho, the unmasking of names.

Only a limited number of people can unmask a name. If someone unauthorized does it, that is an illegal act.Misty » 28 Mar 2017 2:24 pm » wrote: Get back to me when you find out what 'unmasking' actually means.
Unmasking is not illegal.
Leaking the name of an unmasked person to the press is.
And even if you are correct, you once again try to mis-direct attention away from the felonies that have been committed, almost certainly by Obama officials.Misty » 28 Mar 2017 2:24 pm » wrote: Get back to me when you find out what 'unmasking' actually means.
Unmasking is not illegal.
Leaking the name of an unmasked person to the press is.
HOW MUCH DO THE RUSSIANS LOVE DONALD TRUMP?
So much that they are afraid he will launch a nuclear attack against them.
This comes from RT, the news source that Democrats tell us is a mouthpiece for Putin’s government:The US’ ABM sites in Europe and on warships patrolling Russia’s borders are creating the potential for America to launch an overwhelming surprise nuclear strike on Russia, the Russian general staff said.....
As we have written before, Russia hailed Barack Obama’s election gleefully, on the ground that he was a man of the world, whereas Republicans always try to advance American interests. Obama and Hillary Clinton proved them right with the reset button, their pro-Iran policy, their anti-American energy policies, the “flexibility” pledge, and supine responses to Russian aggression in Crimea and Ukraine.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... -trump.php
Was that goalpost very heavy when you moved it?Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 2:28 pm » wrote:Only a limited number of people can unmask a name. If someone unauthorized does it, that is an illegal act.
And I guess you are.Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 2:28 pm » wrote:No matter what Spicer said about this particular case, and he's hardly an expert on intelligence, duuh.
Probably because he isn't pResident anymore.Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 2:30 pm » wrote: And even if you are correct, you once again try to mis-direct attention away from the felonies that have been committed, almost certainly by Obama officials.
Who are you gonna believe - a cabinet official, or an atheist windbag spouting gibberish nonsense?Misty » 28 Mar 2017 2:45 pm » wrote: Was that goalpost very heavy when you moved it?
So what evidence do you have that anyone's name was illegally unmasked?
![]()
![]()
![]()
And I guess you are.
![]()
![]()
Spicer speaks for the White House jackass.
So you may as well have said that it's no matter what the WH says.
LOL
Of which you have absolutely no proof or evidence, which is why you use the weasel words 'almost certainly' to leave yourself a little wiggle room.Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 2:30 pm » wrote:And even if you are correct, you once again try to mis-direct attention away from the felonies that have been committed, almost certainly by Obama officials.
Hey Dim, it is all but determined that felonies have been committed.Misty » 28 Mar 2017 2:57 pm » wrote: Of which you have absolutely no proof or evidence, which is why you use the weasel words 'almost certainly' to leave yourself a little wiggle room.
It is absolutely relevant that the Clinton's serial felons, and that you for years stonewalled and told lies in their defense.Once again you project your **** onto me.
The only one trying to mis-direct attention is you, with your constant babbling about the Clintons.
Their criminal behavior is absolutely relevant, and so is your dishonesty in denying it.Your excuse for constantly talking about the Clintons is that they came close to being back in the White House.
Well newsflash jackass, they didn't make it.
Your Circus Peanut Messiah did.
It must be hard to defend that dumpster fire that you and your kind inflicted upon this country.
Hopefully the guilt is eating you up inside.
Yes, a Ukranian (or Crimean) official wrote an oped in the WSJ stating that outsiders had encouraged independence. And it's established that the US was involved in that.Cannonpointer » 28 Mar 2017 3:40 pm » wrote:This guy makes a lot of sense, IMO. He shares my opinion (not in this video, but other where) that NATO caused Putin to annex Crimea - basically, left him no choice.w
Sadly, we find ourselves in agreement yet again, you filthy animal. Take two aspirin and never call me.Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 4:18 pm » wrote:
Yes, a Ukranian (or Crimean) official wrote an oped in the WSJ stating that outsiders had encouraged independence. And it's established that the US was involved in that.
I don't know if that was simply part of the US government on auto-pilot or intentional by Obama, but it was devastatingly stupid.
If someone wanted Putin to invade Crimea, that was the way to inspire it.
Asiprin? Quack!Cannonpointer » 28 Mar 2017 4:20 pm » wrote:Sadly, we find ourselves in agreement yet again, you filthy animal. Take two aspirin and never call me.
tRump called them criminals. Why can't she?Termin8tor » 28 Mar 2017 4:16 pm » wrote: Are you smearing our professional intelligence operatives?
Hey doofus, I posted that image myself along with the full article.
Then he posts that image as 'proof' of his lie.Misty » 26 Mar 2017 3:09 pm » wrote: Look at how this piece of **** lies.
He keeps babbling about how a NY Times article said that Trump Tower was wiretapped, so I post the full article for him and ask him to point out where in the article it says that, and this is what I get.
More Clem projection.Termin8tor » 20 Mar 2017 3:40 pm » wrote:Isn't it amazing that she lies over and over in attributing things to us we never said?
You mean like how I never 'smeared' John Fund as a child molester?Termin8tor » 20 Mar 2017 4:44 pm » wrote:Something I have never said, but the facts never get in the way of your lies.
Letting Internet providers collect and sell their customers' Web browsing history, location information, health data and other personal details.The House just voted to wipe out the FCC’s landmark Internet privacy protections.
House Republicans voted overwhelmingly Tuesday, by a margin of 215-205, to repeal a set of landmark privacy protections for Web users, issuing a sweeping rebuke of Internet policies enacted under the Obama administration.
It also marks a sharp, partisan pivot toward letting Internet providers collect and sell their customers' Web browsing history, location information, health data and other personal details.
The measure, which was approved by a 50-48 margin in the Senate last week, now heads to the White House, where President Trump is expected to sign it.
Congress's joint resolution empowers Internet providers to enter the $83 billion market for online advertising now dominated by Google and Facebook.
It is likely to lend momentum to a broader GOP rollback of Obama-era technology policies, and calls into question the fate of other tech regulations such as net neutrality, which was approved in 2015 over strident Republican objections and bans Internet providers from discriminating against websites.
And it is a sign that companies such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon will be treated more permissively at a time when conservatives control both the executive and legislative branches.
Here's a hint, Dim.Misty » 28 Mar 2017 6:33 pm » wrote: Letting Internet providers collect and sell their customers' Web browsing history, location information, health data and other personal details.
Great.