ProudKangaroo wrote on Apr 6^th, 2017 at 12:50pm:

CRIMINAL CHARGES! WHAT THIS GOP LAWMAKER JUST DECLARED WILL FORCE SUSAN RICE AND OBAMA INTO HIDING!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/breaking-gop-lawmaker-calls-criminal-cha...

Breaking: GOP Lawmaker Calls for Criminal Charges Against Susan Rice (VIDEO)

Jim Hoft Apr 4th, 2017 1:30 pm 319 Comments

Susan Rice, Barack Obama’s national security adviser and UN ambassador, reportedly requested on several occasions the “unmasking” of identities of private citizens linked to President Trump’s transition and campaign.

The Washington Free Beacon reported today on Rice’s PBS interview last month where she denied having any knowledge of the intelligence community’s alleged incidental surveillance of Trump’s transition team.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/flashback-susan-rice-said-i-know-nothing...

FLASHBACK: Susan Rice Said ‘I Know Nothing’ About Unmasking of Trump Officials

April 3, 2017 2:29 pm

Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama's national security adviser, reportedly requested on several occasions the identities of "masked" U.S. persons in intelligence reports linked to President Trump's transition and campaign. The revelation contradicts Rice's past comments on March 22, when she claimed she knew "nothing" about the intelligence reports.

White House lawyers discovered Rice's dozens of requests last month, during a National Security Council review of the "government's policy on ‘unmasking' the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally," Eli Lake of Bloomberg reported Monday, citing U.S. officials.

But Rice, who Newsweek once called Obama's "right-hand woman," denied during a PBS interview last month having any knowledge of the intelligence community's alleged incidental surveillance of Trump's transition team.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, asserted in March that he had seen evidence that some of the Trump transition team's communications with foreign actors were surveilled by the Obama administration.

"What I've read seems to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but I don't know that it's right and I don't know if the American people would be comfortable with what I've read," Nunes said.

On "PBS NewsHour" on March 22, Judy Woodruff asked Rice about Nunes' claims.

"I know nothing about this," Rice responded at the time. "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today."

"So, today, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance, and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens," added Rice, who went on to criticize Trump for his accusation that Obama wiretapped him during the presidential campaign.

Lake's reporting on Monday for Bloomberg appears to contradict Rice's answer.

Lake's sources told him that Rice wanted to "unmask" the names of the Trump team members in the intelligence reports, who otherwise would show up with generic titles like "U.S. Person One." "Unmasking" is not illegal when tied to a legitimate investigation, but civil liberty advocates worry the practice allows for backdoor surveillance of U.S. citizens.

"One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters, and plans for the incoming administration," Lake reports.

The House Intelligence Committee is expected to soon receive top-secret documents that investigators believe will show whether the private communications of Trump and his transition team were improperly gathered.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 10:56am:


he never does.

He is literally the biggest clown on here.

ProudKangaroo wrote on Apr 8^th, 2017 at 2:23pm:



the rules of being a conspiracy theorist is to never ever use a credible source, use a lot of videos and pictures and most importantly, put out the massive walls of posts that are identical, time and time again.  And never ever, answer a question with an on-topic answer.

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 7:40am:



more fake news from fattie...

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 10:21am:



nobody listens to you. Nobody... NOBODY beleives what you say.  A few mock you with faint praise that you are too stupid to recognise.

get help. Or at least up your medication.

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 10:43am:


Claiming any news source is credible is like blind support of a political party or politician no matter what they say or do, it's idiocy.  You know, like your love and devotion to Trump.

I can't speak for anyone else, but to me, a credible news source is one where you can verify their information.  It only works on a case by case basis.  For example, sometimes, rarely, this includes Fox News and sites like Infowars.  They include their sources and you can verify the facts they've presented.  The conclusions they've reached based on those facts are often a bridge too far and unjustified, but that is because they present opinion as facts all too often.

The same can be said for other news outlets, but to a lesser degree.

If news is posted that is factual and one can verify that or at the least they've provided the sources to what they've presented I would consider that credible.

But as for a blanket "I believe this source is credible no matter what", that's impossible.

One thing I can say, since I've been here and taken the time to read and watch much of what you've posted (and reposted, and reposted and reposted), it doesn't come anywhere near that category. 

I can entertain the opinions of people that you source as fact if it at least passes the logic test for what information on the subject we do know (rarely provided by you) but more often than not your links and videos don't cite their sources, misconstrue something factual but use just enough language in common to make it sound legitimate to those not bothered to fact check, then make a huge leap in logic to a predetermined conclusion and position they have a vested interest in pushing that can't even be justified by the facts they manufactured.

It's as if they work backwards.  "I want to show this, what can I find as a source to twist to fit my narrative" rather than, "Here are the facts, what does it mean".

But like claiming any one outlet is credible ultimately works in the other direction.  I'm sure there are time you have posted something credible, surely...

But you can play the game all you like, even format your posts to match as closely as possible the website or mailing list you stole them from, but no amount of window dressing can make up for the vapid, fact devoid, often conspiracy opinion that has one thing in common in nearly all that you post.

That is that it supports Trump or attacks his opponents 99% of the time.

On top of that, you appear to only bother "fact checking" (if you can call it that) information you don't like so you can dismiss it without even acknowledging the substance.

Credible sources are important, but you've got a lot of work to do before you even bother worrying about what is credible or not if you want to be taken seriously.

A broken clock is more factual than the majority of your posts and it's only right 0.005% of the time.

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 10^th, 2017 at 11:54am:



so in short... you didnt read what he wrote. Or didnt understand it.

SAD

To that I will add, many of the outlets being labeled as Fake News are often punished for trying to keep their integrity.

What I mean is, if CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc make a mistake, rather than double down they will admit and post a correction/retraction.  This gives the likes of Trump, his supporters or their media faithful ammunition to point at and say "aha! Fake News, they even admitted it!", where as in return, the like of Fox News, Inforwards, Breitbart etc, they don't admit fault and never apologise. 

In comparison, even if what these outlets have published may be utter crap and they're called out and been proved lying, it still looks legit because they double down dismiss any criticism rather than admitting they were wrong/made a mistake and post a correction or retraction.

It's a strange scenario where many demand credible news, but those who aspire to be credible get destroyed by those who aren't which can instil the total opposite in peoples minds.  At least those who prefer confirmation bias over fact checking.

Now however, as if it wasn't already clear, Breitbart have always been loyal to Bannon, not Trump.  If Trump takes further action against Bannon, apparently on the advice of his son-in-law, Breitbart will turn on Trump and "declare war" with him and the administration.

If/When that happens, it will weed out the Trump supporters from the rest of the far right racist types as they'll continue to support Breitbart and Bannon, but the Trump supporters will no longer consider Breitbart "credible" and turn on them.

That's the other thing about "credible".  Light, you seem to think that sources are only credible of they're pro-Trump...

Another reason you're asking the wrong question.