Trump Orders Declassification

[TheDoctorIsIn]

What’s “not technically illegal”?

[Tilly_jow]

@TheDoctorIsIn

What’s “not technically illegal”?

That they went through different judges for the different warrants.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Well, of course that’s not illegal. Why would it be?

The FISA court is a 24-hour operation. At any given time, there’s only a few choices of judge - those on duty at that time.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Well, of course that’s not illegal. Why would it be?

The FISA court is a 24-hour operation. At any given time, there’s only a few choices of judge - those on duty at that time.

You think the FBI went in there at 0300?

[Tilly_jow]

@WuWei

@TheDoctorIsIn

Well, of course that’s not illegal. Why would it be?

The FISA court is a 24-hour operation. At any given time, there’s only a few choices of judge - those on duty at that time.

You think the FBI went in there at 0300?

Who knows. But the judges rotation would have.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I have no idea what time the FBI submitted their warrants.

What nefarious purpose do you image, based on the information that multiple judges ruled on the Page applications?

[Tilly_jow]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I have no idea what time the FBI submitted their warrants.

What nefarious purpose do you image, based on the information that multiple judges ruled on the Page applications?

Oh, they have no end of nefarious images in their imaginations when it comes to these warrants.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I have no idea what time the FBI submitted their warrants.

What nefarious purpose do you image, based on the information that multiple judges ruled on the Page applications?

We’ll know soon enough. Did you know there was a time in this country when warrants could only be served Mon-Fri during daylight?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Hmmm.

So you’re happy to make vague, scary-sounding statements, but unwilling to actually go out on a limb and actually say what you’re desperately trying to imply?

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Hmmm.

So you’re happy to make vague, scary-sounding statements, but unwilling to actually go out on a limb and actually say what you’re desperately trying to imply?

I’m not implying, I’m discussing possibilities.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

I’m not implying, I’m discussing possibilities.

It’s possible that a judge never ruled on a warrant at all! Gasp

It’s possible that Obama himself unmasked people! Clutches pearls

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Well, no. You’re not actually discussing any possibilities.

You’re just implying that there are possibilities - and they’re really bad - but you won’t actually say what those possibilities that you see are.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

I’m not implying, I’m discussing possibilities.

It’s possible that a judge never ruled on a warrant at all! Gasp

It’s possible that Obama himself unmasked people! Clutches pearls

But highly improbable.

Argumentum ad absurdem is a low form of sarcasm; probably about a 6th or 7th grade level, “I guess you like him so much you want to marry him!”

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Well, no. You’re not actually discussing any possibilities.

You’re just implying that there are possibilities - and they’re really bad - but you won’t actually say what those possibilities that you see are.

Well no, I am actually discussing possibilities and have posted links to further the discussion and share information about those possibilities.

In fact, on The Big Scale, it all boils down to one big possibility; the “investigation” was politically motivated and key members of the justice department willingly participated on that basis.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

But highly improbable.

Argumentum ad absurdem is a low form of sarcasm; probably about a 6th or 7th grade level, “I guess you like him so much you want to marry him!”

Yet you haven’t explained how those statements are more improbable that your statements on the subject.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

But highly improbable.

Argumentum ad absurdem is a low form of sarcasm; probably about a 6th or 7th grade level, “I guess you like him so much you want to marry him!”

Yet you haven’t explained how those statements are more improbable that your statements on the subject.

Do I need to? From the links I have posted is it not evident?

The improbability doesn’t make discussion of the absurd unnecessary? Can a 6th grade girl marry?

[Zander]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

I’m not implying, I’m discussing possibilities.

It’s possible that a judge never ruled on a warrant at all! Gasp

It’s possible that Obama himself unmasked people! Clutches pearls

But highly improbable.

Argumentum ad absurdem is a low form of sarcasm; probably about a 6th or 7th grade level, “I guess you like him so much you want to marry him!”

It’s almost as effective as if you say so

[SpadeMarlowe]

@tnt

@komobu

Dont get your hopes up. Everything coming out of DC and the news seems like a teaser for a commercial break. Then nothing happens. I think this whole thing will end up like Hillary’s email. Those on the right, know what she did was wrong and that she should be jailed, but those on the left just dont care.

So charge her already. My god. What is Barr waiting for?

Let the man get his ducks in order.
You waited for 2 years to see fruits of Mueller’s labor.
Of course a daily dose of drip drip of fake news made the wait easier, [and that wont happen now], so relax and enjoy the boomerang.
God, I love karma.

[PurpnGold]

@SpadeMarlowe

Let the man get his ducks in order.
You waited for 2 years to see fruits of Mueller’s labor.
Of course a daily dose of drip drip of fake news made the wait easier, [and that wont happen now], so relax and enjoy the boomerang.
God, I love karma.

No YOU waited 2 years for Hilary to be locked up.

We waited to years to find out how many criminals Trump hired to run his campaign AND how willing they were to cozy up to a hostile foreign government for help winning the election (no conspiracy proven). Bonus points… we found out Trump likes covering up affairs and obstructing justice.

I like my ROI, what about the ROI on Hilary?

[DougBH]

I see today that both Clapper and Brennan are outraged that Trump is going to make known what they based their information on that started this whole fake investigation.

Brennan, Clapper lash out at Trump for declassifying 2016 election intel

“Brennan expressed concern about exposing “sources and methods” as well as the intelligence of “partners abroad.””

But Trump didn’t order all information declassified, just that which Barr decides should be declassified. Oh, but then they are worried about “cherrypicking”.

Wait…they don’t want all info declassified but they don’t want it selectively declassified either. Which means they don’t want the public to know at all what they did or why they did it. Why would that be? Why do vampires hate sunlight? (as someone rhetorically asked in the comments)

And finally, Brennan said… “he hopes that DNI Dan Coats and CIA Director Gina Haspel will “stand up” to President Trump’s “unprecedented act.””

Everything about this situation is unprecedented. Unprecedented but a legal order. So now Brennan is encouraging the heads of DNI and the CIA to commit insubordination…which would and should get them immediately removed from office. All to protect himself.

Some things they want completely unredacted and some things they want kept completely secret.

Pretty clear we are getting close to the truth.