Quote Originally Posted by bigred View Post
I tried to post something the other day but FTR crashed and I lost it. Rewriting some stuff.
Forum gods probably realized your post was dog-shit and tried to send you a message.

Intelligence agents choose which briefings to send to which managers. The managers can then choose to unmask if context is needed and request it which is then granted. Makes it pretty hard to spy on Trump people when you don't control the information stream.
Idiocy

And no it does not require "extraordinarily high standards." That is you regurgitating Fox News looking for smoke where it does't exist.
No, pay attention to events, and maybe learn something. Stop getting all your news from the Daily Show.

It's not Fox News rhetoric and propaganda conjuring up smoke. The FBI director himself, testified, under oath, that there are extraordinarily high standards for unmasking, and that that protection of american identities is something to be "obsessed" over.

I never said Trump was connected with Russia. You're deflecting
It's not deflection. It's a completely apt comparison to point out the ridiculous double-standard.

It's hilarious that you point out conspiracy when it comes to election results but I'm naive for not following your conspiracy on the "connections" you claim.
Again, if you don't see the connection between increased dissemination of intelligence, and increased incidents of leaks, you're hopelessly and irreversibly retarded.

Unmasking is not an abuse of power
If it's done without a compelling reason relevant to national security....it IS an abuse of power.
You choose to interpret the lack of context as incriminating but that choice doesn't matter. The default, without any evidence, is that she was acting within the scope of her job and you have to prove otherwise.
These are the exact conditions under which abuses of power occur.

You can't. If you can, and you can prove that she abused her position, then she should go to jail. But you can't.
Right, that's why she should testify before congress. But she won't. You don't think that's suspicious?

When it comes to politics, principles and values are what drives politics and the world.
Funny, my whole point about O'Reilly was that he argued IN DEFENSE of Susan Rice in his segment. Other respectable sources refuted that defense. O'Reilly was on your side, and here you are shitting on his credibility. What does that say about your position then?

And from what I've read, the things he's accused of are mostly over a decade old, and were pretty mild. $9M of the $13M in settlements was because he taunted some chick and told her to "go buy a vibrator". Not saying that's a great thing, but we all say things we regret, and that's probably one of his. They settled, and the woman released a joint statement with Bill saying that there was no wrong-doing.

That sounds like someone who was fishing for a payday, and caught one. All Bill had to do was release a joint statement saying he didn't do anything wrong, and Fox, not Bill, pays up $9 million. I'd settle too. It's not an admission of guilt.

FIND A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT