Reminder that CNN and the like are guilty of sedition

Reminder that CNN and the like are guilty of sedition.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=s13I2Rj3L-0
icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155766682978/fact-sheet-on-eo-12333-raw-sigint-availability
washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.6b7952cf63e9
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

sedition isn't a crime

It's been a crime in the US since 1798.

the sedition act expired in 1800

don't try to teach me my country's history

And sedition was again made punishable thereafter.

whatever man

kill trump, fuck america

bump because important

pay attention to me you faggots

What even is belgium

Did CTR just get BTFO and rage quit?

What are we gonna do about this, guys? Is violence the answer?

We're living in the Nineteen Eighty-Four timeline

btfo

Gassed on the spot.

I know full well, Mr. Drudge.

I'm shocked cnn hasn't stopped being FAKE NEWS. Truly shocked.

Holy fuck that rage quit

Shariablue rage quit/10

It's also very obvious from the timing that he looked up sedition laws on wikipedia.
It's actually very very funny.

WELCOME TO ~~~~ NEWS

CTR ultimately BTFO

They are losing their minds

Well, that was thoroughly entertaining,
Thank you.
Now off to bed. Your mother and I will be up shortly to tuck you in.

Reminder that CNN don't care about how they are perceived; all they want is to rile people up with misleading headlines and plunge the country into civil war.

Laughed out loud at that post/image combo, well memed.

Don't come to our house and shit on the floor. :^)

You will be brought to justice. Ignorance is no excuse.

When you treasonous fucks finally blow your sickly, impotent loads from your sedition-boners and start a civil war, your deaths will be told in song and legend for 1000 years. We'll make Mussolini's lynching look graceful and dignified compared to what we will do to you.

Got repealed again though.
See sedition Act of 1918.

>Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual.

This is not what was said. Here are the actual words, verbatim, from the NY Times article.

"It is not unusual for American businessmen to come in contact with foreign intelligence officials, sometimes unwittingly, in countries like Russia and Ukraine, where the spy services are deeply embedded in society. "

And this was a point made by the author of the article, not the intelligence sources.

The amount of correspondence between Trump campaign associates and Russian government was VERY unusual.

10/10 post.

Man, I love butthurt and this is primo, top notch stuff.

And again made a crime.

Sedition was never allowed, but the legal framework changed around a lot.

CNN is talking about its own sources. They didn't get this from the NYT.

The NYT article itself is also even clearer that "there was no evidence of collusion" between Trump aides and the Russians.

Get fucked, fucko.

There seems to be two types of Trump supporters: those who aren't stupid enough to believe the things that come out of his mouth, but think he will be better for their interests than Democrats, and those stupid enough to genuinely believe everything he says, and support him on that basis. I can't see any justification for thinking that Trump cares about the needs of the poor of any creed. He was pretty much never involved in any kind of charity or initiatives to help the poor. Literally all that exists are his words.

CTR has been getting absolutely

B

T

F

O

Trying to push this literally non existent narrative is breaking them. They are realizing how much they have to lie to themselves. Its beautiful.

Even still, OP misrepresented the CNN article. Here is the full "substance" that OP conveniently left out:

"Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual. However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations. "

So, again, highly unusual.

As for NYT, they said their sources didn't find evidence "so far."

>highly unusual

No.

It's not unusual for campaign staffers to have contacts with foreign representatives, there was simply greater frequency (which remains unexplained).

There is also zero evidence so far of any collusion, yet the headlines would have you believe otherwise.

>As for NYT, they said their sources didn't find evidence "so far."
That's always the case. You can't prove a negative.
All you can prove is an absence of positive at any given time.

CNN is fake news. Trump was right again.

Again, you need to read. They say that both the frequency and the level of those involved are unusual, ie not common, ie not typical, ie they stood out.

This was not expressed in the OP. He took out the sentence that is in the middle of the two sentences he did put there. He has no business claiming anyone is being deceptive.

Maybe English isn't your first language so let me help you: Saying "we haven't found anything" and "we haven't found anything, so far" do not mean the exact same thing. The latter implies more expectation that something will be found at some point.

>Saying "we haven't found anything" and "we haven't found anything, so far" do not mean the exact same thing.
We haven't found any evidence of the flying spaghetti monster, so far.

>They say that both the frequency and the level of those involved are unusual, ie not common, ie not typical, ie they stood out.
Yes, but they also say that such contacts, in and of themselves, are not uncommon.
A nuance that is wholly left out of the headlines.

So as long as this frequency is unexplained, this could very well be nothing at all.

>This was not expressed in the OP.
Are you blind?
It says so right there in the headline.

>Maybe English isn't your first language so let me help you: Saying "we haven't found anything" and "we haven't found anything, so far" do not mean the exact same thing. The latter implies more expectation that something will be found at some point.
You're not very smart are you?

You can never prove a negative, only the temporary absence of a positive.

I tried to explain it to you in my previous post, but apparently it's too much for you.

See

We also haven't found any evidence to disprove the flying spaghetti monster... so far...

...

noticed

Thanks, Hans.

Again, their claim is that the frequency and the level of people involved are unusual. This is fully captured in the headline, where it says "Trump aides," "senior Russian officials," and "constant contact" (as opposed to simply "contact."). I didn't even realize it until further inspection, but this headline is actually perfect.

Whether the communications could be "nothing at all" is irrelevant. It is unusual. *Why* something is unusual and *that* something is unusual are separate. The fact that it IS unusual is what prompted investigation from intelligence officials in the first place.

The only person being deceptive here is the OP, who went out of his way to delete the part of the "substance" that indicates that the frequency and level of people involved is what made communication between the Trump campaign and Russia stand out to intelligence officials.

I see you resistor-kun

Just because CNN is saying they haven't found anything "so far" doesn't mean they have anything to begin with, nor will they find anything later. Pull your head out of your ass.

It wasn't CNN, it was the sources of NYT who said it. I didn't say they would find anything. I'm saying their use of "so far" gives higher indication they believe they will than not. Obviously the fact that they already have caught a Trump official lying and the fact that they've been able to confirm some parts of the Russia-Trump dossier plays a role in where they expect this investigation to go. If Sup Forums wasn't blinded by Trump's cock, they'd see that this is a very fishy situation rather than a mere witch hunt.

There's 18 months worth of unsubstantiated CNN bullshit. Some calls were made, that's it, it's legal, and they want /r/politics types to read into it.

The media is supposed to write this shit once they, y'know, actually have evidence, you retards. The fact they broke the story means there won't be any "evidence" and all they'll have is "uhhh ppl called and there was so substance".

youtube.com/watch?v=s13I2Rj3L-0

Obama removed pretty much all limits on propaganda and press standards.

The "Countering Foreign and Disinformation Act" blows everything open. Anything goes as long as it fits the approved narrative.

You're missing the point, mate.

When you say
>It is unusual
I say "Prove it"

When CNN says
>It is unusual
I say "Prove it".

Unless you think, say, a teacher should be able to recommend a child be taken into social services, because of unusual behaviour that the teacher doesn't define. Or you think Trump shouldn't have been elected because it's unusual for a candidate like him to win.

Because "unusual" means FUCKING NOTHING.

Unless you or CNN are breaking down why it is unusual, what is usual and what the difference between the two means in context, you can shut the fuck up

Cheers lad

>Again, their claim is that the frequency and the level of people involved are unusual.
Which is entirely subjective, AND unsubstantiated so far.

Keep in mind the intelligence community has been sitting on this info for MONTHS. They briefed Trump and Obama on it long ago.
And STILL all they can say is "we don't have any actual evidence of collusion so far", even though they have had actual recordings of the actual phone calls for months.

That's why the headline is entirely out of place, and even seditious.

If you dug hard enough, you would find such "unusual contacts" between any campaign and any foreign nation.
It's nothing more than confirmation bias, until they actually show what they meant by "unusual frequency". For all we know that could mean "twice in a month".

There was never any evidence of an actual connection between Trump and Russia, and there still isn't. All they have is these sensationalist headlines.

Even if you accept the tenuous claim that Russian officials hacked the DNC, that's still lightyears removed from the main claim of "Russia hacked the election", because all that happened was that the DNC was shown to be colluding in favor of Hillary. And the Russians (and/or the hackers) didn't make them do that.

CNN and NYT have their own sources. They could be the same source, but they each report it independently.

And they both say the same thing: no evidence of any collusion. After months of having actual recordings.

That should have been the headline.

>Because "unusual" means FUCKING NOTHING.

Yeah, haha, it's not like the national security advisor just resigned over implications of intentional misconduct with senior Russian officials or anything.

This unusual level of contact certainly doesn't warrant any investigation, haha, pay no attention, haha

can someone tell me how to differentiate between what is alleged here and what diplomats and diplomacy and backdoor channels are?

Holy narratives Batman. How many layers of narrative are YOU fucks on?

Oh it warrants investigation alright.

Investigation that has been going on for months.

And still there's zero evidence of collusion, even though they have actual recordings.

The headline should have been "no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia after months of investigation".

And then the body could have mentioned somewhere that "there was a higher than normal frequency for these types of contacts, but recordings do not show any attempt at wrongdoing."

This is a discussion about whether or not CNN's headline matched its article, not your distrust of the news media, anonymous sources, or the intelligence agencies, kiddos. I'm going to get baited into a completely different discussion so you can fool yourself into thinking you're right.

This is a discussion about CNN being seditious.

And they are.

The headline should have been "no collusion found in Trump-Russia investigation".

Instead they focused on an insignificant detail that proves absolutely nothing, and isn't even quantified in any way, just to ALLUDE at wrongdoing (for which there is ZERO actual evidence).

>Investigation that has been going on for months.

Wrong. The FBI and CIA only got access to NSA recordings a few weeks ago. There's still tons of unanalyzed material to go through. You're trying to spin this as if there no possibility of impropriety RIGHT AFTER Flynn essentially admitted to his own as part of Trump's apparatus. How you feel this is worth softballing given the circumstances is beyond me.

>The FBI and CIA only got access to NSA recordings a few weeks ago.
Source?

Also, I didn't say "they got the recordings months ago", I said "the investigation has been going on for months". Which it has.

>You're trying to spin this as if there no possibility of impropriety
No, I'm saying there's no EVIDENCE of impropriety.

Which there isn't.

Stop spinning this.

>RIGHT AFTER Flynn essentially admitted
Flynn admitted to putting the Russians' minds at ease regarding Obama's unwarranted sanctions.
Which was the right thing to do.

...

icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/155766682978/fact-sheet-on-eo-12333-raw-sigint-availability

And while impropriety is not certain, preliminary investigation shows an unusual amount of contact between Russian officials and Trump campaign staff, which given the fact that other Trump staff were recently found to be acting improperly, means impropriety is a serious possibility.

>acting improperly

Calling the Russian ambassador to say that the president elect does not support the outgoing administrations sanctions on Russia (which are entirely baseless), is not "acting improperly".

Flynn was fired for not being open about that conversation for some reason.

There is ZERO evidence of wrongdoing, even with access to the actual recordings. "Unusual amount of contact" means nothing, and proves nothing.

I bet I could find "unusual amount of contact" between the Hillary campaign and Uruguay or something. You can find anything if you try hard enough.

Why do Americans stand for this?
Why do you just let kikes lie and lie and lie?

Shill, I want you to know that one day someone who lost his will to live is going to find you, and brutally drag you to hell with himself.

>Take the quote out of context
>Waaaahhhh, there's no substance

I didn't take it out of context.

The real story is that investigators have not found any evidence of collusion, even with the actual recordings in hand.

Instead the headline focuses on something that means nothing and proves nothing, and isn't even quantified in any way: "b-b-but there was an UNUSUAL amount of contacts!".

Can't wait to watch Trump get arrested and tried for treason

You purposely skipped a line.
>Officials emphasized that communications between campaign staff and representatives of foreign governments are not unusual. However, these communications stood out to investigators due to the frequency and the level of the Trump advisers involved. Investigators have not reached a judgment on the intent of those conversations.

>Calling the Russian ambassador to say that the president elect does not support the outgoing administrations sanctions on Russia (which are entirely baseless), is not "acting improperly".

It absolutely is. It undermines the acting administration. Until you actually hold Presidential authority, it is not your place to negotiate policy with foreign governments.

>Flynn was fired for not being open about that conversation for some reason.

Gee, could it be because he knew what he did was of dubious legality?

>There is ZERO evidence of wrongdoing, even with access to the actual recordings.

Maybe because what you're getting isn't a complete investigation, and intelligence officials need to sift through thousands of recordings still. It'd be naive to think this is the last we'll hear of this investigation, given Trump's loose association with people like Manafort.

Because that line is already in the headline you dumbass.

Trump's people could have calls with Russian officials all they want, as long as there is no wrongdoing, there is nothing to even talk about.

"Unusual amount of contact" means nothing, proves nothing, and the amount isn't even quantified in any way.

Meanwhile investigators have had the actual recordings of these contacts, and still haven't discovered any wrongdoing. THAT is the headline.

>It absolutely is. It undermines the acting administration.
And Obama's sanctions sabotaged the incoming administration.

>Gee, could it be because he knew what he did was of dubious legality?
There was no dubious legality.

>Maybe because what you're getting isn't a complete investigation, and intelligence officials need to sift through thousands of recordings still.
And when they do, maybe there will be something to report in the main headline.

"There was an unusual amount of contact" means nothing and proves nothing, especially when that amount isn't even quantified.

The evidence will be revealed soon enough and then Trump will be impeached and it will be glorious.

so cnn is buzzfeed-tier clickbait, what's new?

I'm not saying this is some damning evidence or Russian collusion or some such nonsense, just that dismissing the possibility of misconduct out of hand given recent events is wishful thinking at best. Please keep your murderous fantasies to yourself.

1) Trump will never be impeached for what his staffers did
2) wishful thinking is all you have

The best chance you have of getting rid of Trump is civil war.
Which is what fake news agencies like CNN and NYT are working hard to ignite.

Lol.

So you're fine with CNN's main headline essentially being "we still have hope that there is a possibility of collusion!"?

>1) Trump will never be impeached for what his staffers did
We all know Trump has been secretly in contact with Russia. It was blatantly obvious during the election. Expect Trump to be impeached within 2 weeks.

>Obama's sanctions sabotaged the incoming administration.

Even if that were true, it would be within his legal authority to do so so long as he was President and acting within his powers as such. Until Trump became President, his authority to countermand legal actions by the Obama administration was nil.

>There was no dubious legality.

Logan Act.

>And when they do, maybe there will be something to report in the main headline.

They reported exactly what they had. That you think it's irrelevant is not the issue.

>Even if that were true, it would be within his legal authority to do so so long as he was President and acting within his powers as such. Until Trump became President, his authority to countermand legal actions by the Obama administration was nil.
Nobody countermanded anything.

>They reported exactly what they had.
Which was nothing.
And they made their main headline about that nothing.
Embarrassing, and seditious.

vuck frumph wuck thite pieple lol

1. Is the President immune to the Espionage Act that he used to prosecute people for leaking fraud and waste?

2. FBI investigated Flynn and found nothing.

3. There is no evidence of any improper or illegal actions.

You are SO smart, can I suck your lil dickie-doo?

The Logan act is like 200 years old, unenforced and routinely violated. Most people had forgotten it existed until somebody in the deep state leaking conspiracy dusted off the law books looking for a way to attack Trump. Even then, it's not clear that Flynn actually violated it.

>Nobody countermanded anything.

So you're saying Flynn didn't inform the official that the sanctions weren't worth worrying about while also failing to inform the current White House of said communication?

And informing the public of the status of an ongoing investigation is hardly seditious. Especially given how unreliable this administration has been in divulging accurate information itself.

That's not countermanding.

>informing the public of the status of an ongoing investigation is hardly seditious
Except they suggest wrongdoing, while there is zero evidence for it.

Stop with that meme, this all Obama appointees not actual IC.

People like Yates, and including Yates she is probably the major source of the leaks.

And the FBI cleared Flynn.

Any article that can't provide the names of "sources" is seditious propaganda and the publisher should be publicly hanged.

That's far outside the intent of the Logan act. It was intended to stop private citizens from doing shit in the name of the US. Being a member of the incoming administration and discussing your policies with other countries without officially making a deal is not a violation of the Logan act.

The constitution is like 200 years old, unenforced and routinely violated. Most people had forgotten it existed until somebody in the deep state leaking conspiracy dusted off the law books looking for a way to attack Trump. Even then, it's not clear that Flynn actually violated it.

Embarrassing

The FBI have not "cleared" Flynn as of yet. In fact, I don't believe an investigation has been started. They interviewed him over his communications with Russian officials, but the calls in question were not actually listened to to gauge discrepancy to Flynn's account. At the time they simply took his word.

>1947

Hilarious tbqh fampai

t. Anonymous

washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-reviewed-flynns-calls-with-russian-ambassador-but-found-nothing-illicit/2017/01/23/aa83879a-e1ae-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?utm_term=.6b7952cf63e9

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

...