The Goat Pen

Professor Tiger wrote:

I think I'll go with Charles Colson. He was "Special Counsel" to Nixon, pretty close to Rice's National Security Advisor. He didn't do the actual wiretapping, he just approved it. Likewise Rice - she didn't do the actual wiretapping. She got the Intelligence community to do it for her. That's something that even Liddy and the Plumbers couldn't imagine in their wildest dreams back in their day.

Jesus. Our intel people surveil foreigners (friends and adversaries) as a course of business. She was NSA. Hello?

Colson also leaked the secret FBI files on Daniel Elsberg in an attempt to discredit the Pentagon Papers and the Vietnam War. Rice unmasked and leaked the secret identies of Trump associates all around the government, and eventually to the public, to discredit Trump and his associates.

Anybody who isn't Fox/Rush/Hannity say it was her job to examine those intel reports and to learn the identities of U.S. citizens as warranted. The 'leaking' accusation is unproved and comes from a highly questionable source.

Colson obstructed justice by lying to investigators. Rice just lies and lies on national tv, first about Benghazi, later that Bowe Berdahl "served with honor and distinction," and recently that she "knew nothing" about Trump being surveilled.

Maybe Rice will become a born-again Christian too.

If lying on national tv were a crime, Trump would be in much more trouble than Rice, and you know I'm right.

Once Michael Flynn gets his immunity deal, and then Manafort and Paige get theirs - this lame effort to deflect attention to the whistleblowers will dissolve into nothingness.

Rice Story Source Unmasked as Fake News Blogger - Jeff Darcy Associated Press

The source of the allegation that Susan Rice sought to "illegally unmask" Trump associates named in intel reports for political reasons, is a discredited right-wing blogger who had promoted stories claiming Hillary Clinton's campaign ran a child sex ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza parlor.

Recently, "60 Minutes" profiled the blogger, Mike Cernovich, as a producer and promoter of fake news, such as the claim that Hillary Clinton has parkinson's disease. A profile of Cernovich in the New Yorker also highlighted the white nationalists rhetoric in his blog.

Bloomberg View columnist Eli Lake piggybacked on Cernovich's story Monday. Lake wrote that according to "U.S. officials familiar with the matter," Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign."

In an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell, Rice rebuked the accusations

Not exactly Woodward and Bernstein, eh prof?

Well, if Rice "rebuked the allegations" to Andrea Mitchell, then that settles it. I'm sure Colson and Haldeman and Erlichman and Liddy "rebuked" allegations made against them too. And therefore the matter was closed.

To Andrea Mitchell, she says she was "doing her job" when she unmasked Trump and his associates.

[youtube]s1K4p3OLo7I[/youtube]

But only a week ago, a Rice told Judy Woodruff she "knew nothing about" surveilling Trump:

[youtube]5f3ScOY5FJY[/youtube]

Who are you going to believe? Some partisan hack reporter from the AP/60 Minutes, or your lying eyes?

This is the third whopper she has told on TV. First there was Benghazi was caused by a YouTube video. The second was Bowe Bergdahl "served with honor and distinction" This is the third. She lies.

I bet that Cernovich guy watched the Bolshoi Ballet on PBS once, and wears Pepe the Frog insignia on his underwear.

Rice's "explanation" was so ludicrous that even John King, of the most rabid anti-Trump network in America - CNN - was mocking her:

[youtube]iSTRzprtBzw[/youtube]

Meanwhile, Schiff was asked point blank by CNN if there was any evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. His answer says it all:

[youtube]m8ifT1lssHY[/youtube]

Professor Tiger wrote:
But only a week ago, a Rice told Judy Woodruff she "knew nothing about" surveilling Trump:

[youtube]5f3ScOY5FJY[/youtube]

Listen again: Woodruff's question ends with "disclosure of the names/identities". Rice said she didn't know about any DISCLOSURE. Rice even goes on to explain about incidental surveillance of foreigners and how it often involves American citizens.

Trump fiddles and his people dance.

Professor Tiger wrote:Meanwhile, Schiff was asked point blank by CNN if there was any evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. His answer says it all:

[youtube]m8ifT1lssHY[/youtube]

lol You can't believe a word them dems say, amirite?

Patience.

I wonder how IB feels about this...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/fa55e ... Bgood.html

Once tick identifies your source/author as a conservative, he dismisses your argument, but let a lib tell whopper after whopper, well, let the dancing begin.

sardis wrote:I wonder how IB feels about this...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/fa55e ... Bgood.html

Dy-no-MITE!

sardis wrote:I wonder how IB feels about this...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/fa55e ... Bgood.html

LMAO! It must kill IB to imagine a predatory black man ravaging the milky white flesh of the woman he fantasizes about.

And Tick, I hereby rebuke your allegations. Therefore, your allegations are completely disproven once and for all. Next topic...

bluetick wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote:Meanwhile, Schiff was asked point blank by CNN if there was any evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. His answer says it all:

[youtube]m8ifT1lssHY[/youtube]

lol You can't believe a word them dems say, amirite?

Patience.

Tick, incorrect. When Schiff says there is no evidence of any Trump-Putin collusion, then I believe him. But yes, that could change.

Regardless, in one week, Rice went from saying she didn't know anything about Ttump surveillance to saying she did not DISCLOSE the information, but she admits to UNMASKING it. She is perilously close to sinking to the Clintonian level of "it depends on what the definition of "is" is. When it gets to that level of lying with a law degree, you already lost the argument.

Toe, my source was not conservative. It was John King - the CNN John King. Even he saw Rice's blatant lie for what it was, and he responded with the mockery it deserves. I guess that that means that the CNN John King was "dancing" to Trump's tune.

I'd like to see you dancing on a bed of hot coals...

Toe, my source was not conservative.


Wasn't referencing your particular post, but point stands.


Tick/Dems/PAH/MSM utilize Saul's rules all the time:

4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason.

There goes the nuclear option. The R's like it today, but they won't like it someday when they can't stop a Democrat senate from voting Raul Castro onto SCOTUS.

Perhaps, but not for a couple generations....people 40 and over will remember Obamanomics for a lllloooooooooooooooonnggggg time.

Nunes ya' business...Chairman Doughboy has quit the House committee. :::golfclap:::

sardis wrote:I wonder how IB feels about this...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/m/fa55e ... Bgood.html

LMAO ..awesome

bluetick wrote:Nunes ya' business...Chairman Doughboy has quit the House committee. :::golfclap:::

Congrats on another hard fought victory, another scalp that means absolutely zero to hundreds of thousands of Obama turned Trump voters, who see the economy doing what it can do w/o interference from dems. Remember someone saying, "It's the economy stupid".....so take your establishment victory and sleep well.


PAH in '20?

Toemeesleather wrote: PAH in '20?

Negative.

Pence in '18!