Jon Benet Ramsey?
Posted at 7:43 am on Apr 5, 2017
The unmasked Russian hacking kerfuffle has become eerily as tedious and likely to wane away with a similar lack of resolution.
Replies to: Jon Benet Ramsey?
I disagree. We will find out what happened, but hyper-partisans, alleged Civil Rights lovers, those
supposed privacy-protection advocates whose motto was "It is the responsibility of every citizen to question authority", will flush their credibility down the toilet defending to the death Susan Rice and Barack Obama.
What if nothing out of the ordinary actually happened?
Posted at 1:49 pm on Apr 5, 2017
In the unmasked Russian hacking kerfuffle, not the Ramsey murder.
"alleged Civil Rights lovers" = black people, I gather.
Just keep going lower and lower.
Your obsession with race is out of control.
(no message)
So is your Trump nuttiness. Susan Rice is a jerk. IF they have the goods on her she should get what
she deserves.
None of that though should impact the treason investigation.
Yeah, those pesky Civil Rights people trying to protect US citizens civil rights.
We certainly don't need them.
I'm still waiting for you or anyone of you to post those lies she told, you know the ones which upset you so very much.
Where are those pesky Civil Rights leaders when the perps are BHO and Rice and the victim is Flynn?
(no message)
Flynn, the lying foreign agent seeking immunity, a victim? That's a good one.
(no message)
Of a Civil Rights/privacy violation? Undisputably yes.
(no message)
Explain that Colebot.
(no message)
Your post shows how much you've been paying attention. This quote is from the NYTimes, and
I will hope you're smart enough to discern the privacy violation in it:
Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States. The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.
Yeah so how is that a privacy violation as he did violate the Logan Act. Get a grip.
(no message)
All I can say is:
(no message)
Of course, since you can't refute the point substantively.
The unmasking of Flynn's name in that call was entirely legit.
Your sense of humor could also use a tune up.
Well, they're being hyper partisan somewhere else. Have you looked under your bed or in your closet?
Oh, you're in your closet - I forgot.
"Wane away"? - so far it's a non-issue knowing it's almost routine to ask for an unmasking of
identities if a breakdown in national security is at issue.
The resolution is, National Security heads often ask for the unmasking of subjects from the NSA when they feel national security is at risk. Sometimes the NSA complies with requests, and sometimes they don't. Nothing to see there and certainly it doesn't support Trump's allegations against Obama wiretapping claim.
Like Benghazi, or HRC's email's, R's will do and say anything that confuses focus on real issues of the day. Sure, this ruse will disappear but only as soon as R's find some other invented mystery to solve that obfuscates and throws shadow on what is really the issue.
And obviously Jon Benet Ramsey story didn't "wane away" as her story has appeared in the news constantly over this last 17 years.