Liberal Forum

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 6:12 pm » wrote: Charles Jay "Charlie" Sykes is an American political commentator.
From 1993 to 2016, Sykes hosted a conservative talk show on WTMJ in Milwaukee.
He is also the editor of Right Wisconsin, which he co-owns with WTMJ's parent company E. W. Scripps. Wikipedia

Newsflash jackass, just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean he's not a Conservative.

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 6:30 pm » wrote: WOW!
You've wrapped up the whole case already.

LOCK HER UP!
LOCK HER UP!

Since you know exactly what happened, whose names did she leak?
And who else is part of the criminal conspiracy?
Must be a whole lot of people.

LOCK THEM UP!
LOCK THEM UP!

Trump signs repeal of U.S. broadband privacy rules.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed a repeal of Obama-era broadband privacy rules, the White House said, a victory for internet service providers and a blow to privacy advocates.

The signing, disclosed in White House statement late on Monday, follows strong criticism of the bill, which is a win for AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc.

Termin8tor » 04 Apr 2017 7:28 pm » wrote:Unlike you, my allegations are supported by the fact that felonies have been committed.

Termin8tor » 04 Apr 2017 7:28 pm » wrote:As I have noted many times, I don't want anyone locked up without trial and conviction.
And obviously we do not know all names of those involved.
But it's highly unlikely that members of the permanent intelligence community are going to commit felonies against a presidential candidate.
Meaning those felonies must have been committed by Obama officials.

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2017 7:08 pm » wrote:Um, the ones against unmasking for kicks?
The unmaskign is the only known crime. Funny you would refer to the only known crime as a "diversion." I call it "the only known crime."

Termin8tor » 04 Apr 2017 7:24 pm » wrote:Look, a squirrel!
Why should I comment? There's nothing wrong with that, let alone illegal.
Little Miss Marxist wants to focus on anything except the felonies.

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 10:46 pm » wrote: Unmasking is not a crime.
And it would be awfully hard to unmask 'for kicks' considering the process involved in unmasking a name.

Termin8tor » 04 Apr 2017 11:42 am » wrote:

Joseph DiGenova Is A Discredited Republican Activist Who Pushed False Benghazi Claims And Suffered Criticism For Unprofessional Conduct

DiGenova Falsely Claimed Members Of The Military Were "Relieved Of Their Duty Because They Insisted That There Be A Military Response" To Benghazi Attacks.

On October 28, 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that some members of the military were "relieved of their duty because they insisted that there be a military response" the night of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, despite the fact that a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

These military forces included a Marine anti-terrorism team deployed from Spain and special operations forces that were stationed in Croatia and the United States, but they did not arrive until after the attacks were over. [Media Matters, 10/29/13; Media Matters, 10/28/13]

DiGenova Baselessly Alleged That Obama Administration Tried To Cover Up Theft Of Hundreds Of Surface-To-Air Missiles In Benghazi.

In October 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that the Obama administration was trying to cover up the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles that were somehow linked to the American presence in Benghazi.

While diGenova told WMAL that he didn't whether the missiles were physically at the CIA annex the night of the attack, "it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles."

DiGenova did not name his sources for this claim, acknowledged that some of his information is not "verifiable," and provided no evidence to back up the allegation. [Media Matters, 8/13/13; CNS News, 8/13/13]

DiGenova Has Been Criticized By Lawmaker For "Non-Stop Mugging" For The Press And For Lacking "Impartiality, Non-Partisanship, And Professionalism."

In 1998, Joseph DiGenova and his wife and legal partner Victoria Toensing, who were working as outside counsel for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, were criticized for their actions in connection with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

A February 5, 1998, Roll Call article "Rep. Bill Clay (D-Mo) launched a stinging attack on the two lead attorneys investigating the Teamsters campaign finance scandal yesterday, alleging that the attorneys have lost their objectivity because of their frequent television appearances and 'participation' in the scandal involving ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky." The article also reported:
DiGenova Was Criticized For Conflict Of Interest Over Dual Role In Separate DOJ Investigations.

DiGenova and Toensing were criticized for serving as special counsel in the House Education and the Workforce Committee probe into Justice Department oversight of the Teamsters union while also representing Dan Burton, the committee's chairman at the time, in a separate Justice Department probe.

DiGenova Was Involved In Discredited And Retracted Article About President Clinton.

DiGenova and Toensing were involved in a retracted Dallas Morning News article claiming that a Secret Service agent had witnessed President Clinton and Lewinsky in a "compromising situation."

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2017 10:59 pm » wrote:Making an unmasking public is a crime - don't quibble over shorthand.
It was easy for obi's boy to make that public "for kicks."

Cannonpointer » 04 Apr 2017 6:48 pm » wrote:There is nothing illegal or untoward in an incoming pResident looking for a back channel to a word leader - especially on with nukes.

It falls under the banner, "doing his **** job."

Misty » 05 Apr 2017 12:44 am » wrote: There is nothing wrong with an incoming president asking the State Dep't or the outgoing administration to help create those contacts, so why did it have to be back-channel?

Trump spoke to several world leaders during the transition.
Why the secrecy with just this one?

Misty » 05 Apr 2017 12:39 am » wrote: It's not shorthand.
Unmasking is not a crime.
The leaking of a unmasked name is.
Those are two completely different things.

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 10:36 pm » wrote: Other than the leaking of Flynn's name, what felonies have been committed?

Those two sentences in bold print seem to totally contradict each other.

How hypocritical are you always running around bleating about how there's NO EVIDENCE that Trump or his officials did anything wrong.

Yet you have pronounced Obama guilty of committing felonies based on a bunch of opinion pieces.

To paraphrase a saying from Bill Maher: You don't know for a fact that Obama committed any felonies, you just know that it's true.

Misty » 05 Apr 2017 12:44 am » wrote:There is nothing wrong with an incoming president asking the State Dep't or the outgoing administration to help create those contacts, so why did it have to be back-channel?

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 10:46 pm » wrote: Unmasking is not a crime.
And it would be awfully hard to unmask 'for kicks' considering the process involved in unmasking a name.

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 10:51 pm » wrote: Why would Trump have needed to establish a back-channel line of communication with Moscow?
And why go all the way to the Seychelles Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 11:17 pm » wrote:Rachel Maddow reminded me tonight of who Joseph diGenova is.
He was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky affair and spent many hours on TV talking about it.

Last year he said that Hillary Clinton would not be able to continue her campaign because she would be indicted within 60 days.

DiGenova has a long history of misinformation and unprofessional conduct.

Misty » 05 Apr 2017 12:39 am » wrote: Unmasking is not a crime.
The leaking of a unmasked name is.
Those are two completely different things.

Misty » 04 Apr 2017 10:51 pm » wrote:Why would Trump have needed to establish a back-channel line of communication with Moscow?
And why go all the way to the Seychelles Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean?

That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

Now, why in the world would soon-to-be President Donald Trump want to know where Vladamir Putin’s head is at regarding untangling from Iran? This “explosive” report from the Washington Post describes a Seychelles meeting set up between a Trump ally and Putin people:

The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladi­mir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials.

The meeting took place around Jan. 11 — nine days before Trump’s inauguration — in the Seychelles islands in the Indian Ocean, officials said. Though the full agenda remains unclear, the UAE agreed to broker the meeting in part to explore whether Russia could be persuaded to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, a Trump administration objective that would likely require major concessions to Moscow on U.S. sanctions. [Emphasis added.]

So Donald Trump wants Russia to get out of Syria and stop palling around with Iran and wants to see what it’d take to make that happen? That sounds like a good thing, right?
Why are people crowing about a “smoking gun” here?
https://spectator.org/trumps-putin-back-channel/