Breaking News....Susan "Rat Face" Rice Had Better "Lawyer Up"

You think the Russians did not want a Trump win?

Holy chit , you need to go check into the nuthouse. That is right up there with there was no moonlanding and JD lost plane under the bushes malarkey!
.

You think the Russians did not want a Trump win?

Holy chit , you need to go check into the nuthouse. That is right up there with there was no moonlanding and JD lost plane under the bushes malarkey!
. Originally Posted by WTF

tell me why

You think the Russians did not want a Trump win?

Holy chit, you need to go check into the nuthouse. Originally Posted by WTF

He made a solid case. Too bad you're not smart enough to refute it. Stick to the drive-by homo insults and one-liners.

He made a solid case. Too bad you're not smart enough to refute it. Stick to the drive-by homo insults and one-liners. Originally Posted by lustylad

There is no doubt the Russians wanted a Trump win.

He may make them regret thier wish but that does not change the fact that all evidence points to the Russians wanting a Trump victory.

Don't you have some Syrian baby to adopt? That is , if homo's can still adopt, what with all this GOP domination of both Houses and the WH and now the SC. You gays are in for rocky times!


.

There is no doubt the Russians wanted a Trump win.

He may make them regret thier wish but that does not change the fact that all evidence points to the Russians wanting a Trump victory.

Don't you have some Syrian baby to adopt? That is , if homo's can still adopt, what with all this GOP domination of both Houses and the WH and now the SC. You gays are in for rocky times!


. Originally Posted by WTF

what evidence you unrepentant blowhard?

give it to me

Don't hold your breath. If WTF gives any, it will be laughable but he'll be convinced it is valid.

https://www.ft.com/content/f286ce42-...c-082c54a7f539

One reason.

what evidence you unrepentant blowhard?

give it to me Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Seeing how you do not have top secret security clearance. ... we can only give you this version.


https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/0...n-brennan.html



.

[QUOTE=lustylad;1059382223]Stop lying, Nothing in the WSJ editorial suggested what Susan Rice did was right, legal or appropriate. /QUOTE]

I wrote that your post from post #82 had the surveillance was legal. Here is part of the text from your post #82.

Ms. Rice received summaries of U.S. eavesdropping either when foreign officials were discussing the Trump team, or when foreign officials were conversing with a Trump transition member. The surveillance was legally authorized, but the identities of U.S. citizens are typically masked so they cannot be known outside intelligence circles. Ms. Rice asked for and learned the identity of the Trump official, whose name hasn’t been publicly disclosed and our source declined to share.

One more time, the unmasked person was not made PUBLIC. Add this to what the former lawyer from a republican administration had to say to MSN, I don't see any problems for Rice. I certainly do not see any problems that the OP suggests.

Susan Rice Unmasked

Obama’s security adviser sought the name of at least one Trump official in intelligence reports.

April 3, 2017 7:27 p.m. ET

None of this should deter investigators from looking into the Trump-Russia connection. By all means follow that evidence where it leads. But the media have been running like wildebeest after that story while ignoring how the Obama Administration might have abused domestic surveillance for its political purposes. Americans deserve to know the truth about both.

Appeared in the Apr. 04, 2017, print edition.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/susan-r...ked-1491262064 Originally Posted by lustylad

Ivy leaguer, the above is from the bottom of the WSJ editoral in your post #82. Trump has more to be worried about than Rice!

There is no doubt the Russians wanted a Trump win.




. Originally Posted by WTF

I won't argue that Trump was Russia's choice.

But come on. Just like 90% of our Main Stream Media and various News Pundits, they thought the odds of him actually winning was ZERO.

“If you want to know what a pro-Russia policy would look like, here are some elements of it. You’d slash defense spending, slow down our nuclear modernization, roll back missile defense systems, you would enter into a one-sided nuclear arms control agreement, and you’d do everything you could to stop oil and gas production.

That was Barack Obama’s policy for eight years. It’s not Donald Trump’s policy. None of those things are good for Russia —that Trump’s proposed to do— to roll back those Obama era policies."

“If you want to know what a pro-Russia policy would look like, here are some elements of it. You’d slash defense spending, slow down our nuclear modernization, roll back missile defense systems, you would enter into a one-sided nuclear arms control agreement, and you’d do everything you could to stop oil and gas production.

That was Barack Obama’s policy for eight years. It’s not Donald Trump’s policy. None of those things are good for Russia —that Trump’s proposed to do— to roll back those Obama era policies." Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Tsk, tsk, tsk....there you go again, Your Holiness...by now I'd of thought you would know better than to match wits with the Dims with the use of logic and common sense.

Next time, toss yourself onto the floor, kicking and screaming like a bratty 4-year old...throwing tantrums is what they understand; not rational, well thought out reasoning.

Ivy leaguer, the above is from the bottom of the WSJ editoral (sic) in your post #82. Trump has more to be worried about than Rice! Originally Posted by flghtr65

High school flunkee, Trump has nothing to worry about. I have no problem letting investigators look into his alleged Russian connections. It's already happening. So knock yourself out. While you're at it, how do you explain Putin's puppet lobbing 59 cruise missiles at Putin's Syrian client? Something doesn't add up there. Why would Trump piss off his puppet master like that? Help me out!

Oh, and the WSJ editorial said "Americans deserve to know the truth about both." That reminds me - you still haven't assented to my straightforward proposal... for the third time:

Tell you what - let's have Susan Rice tell us under oath how many times she requested unmasking. Let's ask her to justify each of her requests, ok? If you're so sure there was no politics involved, then let's hear it from the rat's mouth! Originally Posted by lustylad

If the democrats didn't nominate the worse candidate to represent their party, they might have won the election. Why would Russia hack the election to give Trump the presidency when they KNOW for a fact that Hillary can be bought? She as Secretary of State already gave Russia 20% of the US's uranium for a donation to her foundation.