Obamagate

[rogue06]

It's very curious watching these stories unfold.

Liberals say: "Trump colluded with Russia!"
Conservatives say: "Where's the evidence?"
Liberals say: "Um, ah, well, you see, we have high confidence, and, uh, this dossier that -- oh, it was debunked? Hmmm... unnamed sources... um... well, anyway, we're sure the evidence is out there! We just gotta keep looking for it. It's bound to turn up... isn't it?"

On the other side:

Conservatives say: "Obama spied on Trump!"
Liberals say: "Where's the evidence?"
Conservatives say: "It's right here. We've got names, dates, computer records -- it's a pretty solid case, actually."
Liberals say: ""

Good Morning America, Matt Lauer and Andrea Mitchell on NBC's Today, and Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo on their respective CNN shows) or that bringing it up is both racist and sexist (see Chris Matthews and Mother Jones D.C. bureau chief David Corn on MSNBC's Hardball).

[rogue06]

My prediction: Neither conspiracy theory will ultimately go anywhere, because the "evidence" both sides present are misinterpreted, misrepresented, or just flat wrong.

Too early to tell. To date after months of intensive investigation even the New York Times, which has been leading the charge for the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians has grudgingly admitted that no corroborating evidence has surfaced while calling for the investigation to continue. On the other side, the story has just started and Rice has been caught flatly contradicting what she claimed earlier on PBS but has the benefit of a MSM grimly determined to run interference for her.

[Mountain Man]

My prediction: Neither conspiracy theory will ultimately go anywhere, because the "evidence" both sides present are misinterpreted, misrepresented, or just flat wrong.

Except that in the case of "Obamagate", we have both Evelyn Farkas and Susan Rice confirming the accusations.

But you're right, probably nothing will come of it. Washington politicians are almost never held accountable even when it's obvious they're guilty.

[JimL]

Yes she did. In her interview, there's a very curious phrase: "...if they found out how we knew what we knew...".

What do you suppose she meant by that?

Geesh, you are such an idiot MM I can't hardly believe it. The quote, "If they found out how we knew what we knew", means, that if they, i.e. the Trump Administration, knew of the existing intel, which is both "how and what" it is that is known, then they, the guilty party, might well bury it. Are you so brainwashed that you no longer have a mind of your own to figure things out?

[Tassman]

Too early to tell. To date after months of intensive investigation even the New York Times, which has been leading the charge for the claim that Trump colluded with the Russians has grudgingly admitted that no corroborating evidence has surfaced while calling for the investigation to continue.

On the other side, the story has just started and Rice has been caught flatly contradicting what she claimed earlier on PBS but has the benefit of a MSM grimly determined to run interference for her.

[Roy]

Good. Now - how did she know they were names of Trump's associates if the names were redacted? How did she specifically ask for masked names of Trump's associates to be unmasked, when she couldn't know they were the names of Trump's associates because they were masked?

Did she, for instance, say 'I want to know the identity of this person whose name has been redacted, but only if it's one of the names on this list of Trump's associates'?

That's a very good question. I wonder if Ms. Rice has a very good answer?

It was a question for you and you obviously don't have a good answer.

The scenario you propose has not only been denied under testimony, it's inconsistent and logically unworkable. But you're so committed to your conspiracy theory that you don't care.

Another good question is how did Evelyn Farkas know that Trump et al were under surveillance when she was no longer a member of the Obama administration?

And again. The possibility that she didn't know contradicts your conspiracyfest, so you simply ignore it.

[Roy]

Which means she could have been asking for them to unmask all names, which is even a bigger problem, isn't it? Meaning not only did she violate Trump's privacy but potentially everyone else.

Perhaps. It has the advantage of being possible, unlike MM's fantasy.

Either that or she told them "anytime one of Trump's people is recorded do not mask their names in the reports you send me"

Possible, but unlikely and contradicting both her testimony and the whole idea of 'unmasking'.

[Starlight]

WaPo has a cute little chart here where you can hover over all the people in the Trump administration and see the 39 currently-known links with Russian interests. Assuming the FBI/CIA/NSA know more than the journalists, their whiteboards must be giant webs of criss-crossing lines.

[Mountain Man]

The quote, "If they found out how we knew what we knew", means, that if they, i.e. the Trump Administration, knew of the existing intel...

And how do you suppose that "intel" was gathered if Trump and his people weren't specifically targeted by the Obama administration?

Hmmm...?

Don't forget, Susan Rice is on record admitting that she explicitly asked that the names of Trump's associates be "unmasked". Oh, but not for any political reasons. No, really.

[Mountain Man]

Perhaps. It has the advantage of being possible, unlike MM's fantasy.

Fantasy? Susan Rice is on record admitting that she explicitly asked that the names of Trump's associates be unmasked.

[Mountain Man]

It was a question for you and you obviously don't have a good answer.

I'll say it again: Susan Rice is on record admitting that she explicitly asked that the names of Trump's associates be unmasked. You ask, "How did she know the masked reports were about Trump's associates?" And the answer is: I don't know, but apparently she did know it. There's a very good reason that people like Senator Rand Paul and others are making noise about Rice testifying under oath.

The scenario you propose has not only been denied under testimony, it's inconsistent and logically unworkable. But you're so committed to your conspiracy theory that you don't care.And again. The possibility that she didn't know contradicts your conspiracyfest, so you simply ignore it.

Is it still a conspiracy theory when the principle actors have gone on record admitting their deeds?

I suppose you could argue that Farkas was lying in her interview, but that's something you would have to actually argue for. You don't get that one for free.

[Mountain Man]

Senator Rand Paulhttp://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...s-devastating/

[JimL]

Fantasy? Susan Rice is on record admitting that she explicitly asked that the names of Trump's associates be unmasked.

You're an idiot MM. If Rice knew the names, then she wouldn't need to ask for them to be unmasked.

[Mountain Man]

You're an idiot MM. If Rice knew the names, then she wouldn't need to ask for them to be unmasked.

You're not even debating me anymore. You're desperately trying to explain away the facts. Look, I'm just telling you what Susan Rice has said on the record. You can argue about the whys and hows all you want, but she said what she said. End of debate.

[Tassman]

WaPo has a cute little chart here where you can hover over all the people in the Trump administration and see the 39 currently-known links with Russian interests. Assuming the FBI/CIA/NSA know more than the journalists, their whiteboards must be giant webs of criss-crossing lines.

Yes exactly. This is the real story, unlike MM's diversionary fantasy. The Washington Post has a great history of exposing presidential corruption, good to see it living up to its reputation.