Obama wiretapped Trump Tower according to Trump

[tucker6]

This thread is for discussing the beginnings of a potentially monumental issue. If true, it will sink Obama and his legacy, but also the legacy of the Democratic party and the new wiretap rules formed after 9/11. If untrue, it will sink Trump and his administration and move the GOP away from him. I think there is more smoke here than in the Trump Admin - Russian connection. We shall see.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322337-trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-trump-tower

[johnhannibalsmith]

Gonna make an early prediction if there's even a little basket fire and take a shot with the Russian ambassador being under surveillance, not Trump or his offices.

[davew]

There will be more swamp clearing.

Why would the 0bama administration use soviet style tactics? if true this is worse than what the Nixon group did.

And I thought Bill Clinton would be the first ex-president indicted, maybe I was wrong.

Long live the progressive corruption party.

[Tom]

Obama bugged everyone, all over the planet.
Obama is scumbag with no integrity, of course he did it.

[jk3521]

Obama bugged everyone, all over the planet.
Obama is scumbag with no integrity, of course he did it.


Thank you for your completely unbiased opinion ! :rolleyes::lol:

[Hank]

This thread is for discussing the beginnings of a potentially monumental issue. If true, it will sink Obama and his legacy, but also the legacy of the Democratic party and the new wiretap rules formed after 9/11. If untrue, it will sink Trump and his administration and move the GOP away from him. I think there is more smoke here than in the Trump Admin - Russian connection. We shall see.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/322337-trump-accuses-obama-of-wiretapping-trump-tower

Really?:lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqCJfUKlls

[jk3521]

Just think what a man as devious as Donald Trump is planning to do against his enemies with his new Presidential powers ! Whew, boy !

[jk3521]

There is no depth that any politician will not stoop. It's in the blood.

[Clocker]

There is no depth that any politician will not stoop. It's in the blood.


I have it on good authority here that Trump is not a politician! :D

[jk3521]

I have it on good authority here that Trump is not a politician! :D

:lol:

[davew]

There is no depth that any politician will not stoop. It's in the blood.

We will see how many Sessions can get into jail.

[Greyfox]

Either Obama or Trump is nuts.
A Special Investigation is warranted.

[chadk66]

from what I heard this morning on sirius they had asked for a warrant and were denied. Then later asked again and got it so they bugged him. The question apparently is if they continued to bug after the parameters of the warrant had expired. Doesn't sound like there is any doubt he was bugged

[jk3521]

Either Obama or Trump is nuts


This whole world has gone nutso ! I give up! :mad:

[Show Me the Wire]

Things are getting interesting. Obama spokesman denies administration did not order the tap, however the spokesman did not deny the wire tap. Let's see the DOJ had a relationship with candidate Clinton. Secret meeting, in Phoenix, between AG and Willy Jefferson, things that make you go hmmmm.

Interested in seeing the probable cause cited for the warrant to tap Trump Towers.

[Clocker]

Things are getting interesting. Obama spokesman denies administration did not order the tap, however the spokesman did not deny the wire tap. Let's see the DOJ had a relationship with candidate Clinton. Secret meeting, in Phoenix, between AG and Willy Jefferson, things that make you go hmmmm.



The statement said that neither Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen.

The FBI appears to have gotten a FISA surveillance warrant. The FBI is under DOJ, headed by the AG. Neither the AG nor anyone at the FBI are White House officials.

I love cheap political drama. :popcorn:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/04/trump-obama-was-tapping-my-phones/

[tucker6]

The statement said that neither Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen.

The FBI appears to have gotten a FISA surveillance warrant. The FBI is under DOJ, headed by the AG. Neither the AG nor anyone at the FBI are White House officials.

I love cheap political drama. :popcorn:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/04/trump-obama-was-tapping-my-phones/

You really think Joe Public is that nuanced? All you have to do is put Obama's name before AG and Obama was involved. Even if Obama didn't know about it, he should have. The AG certainly would have been told that his dept was trying to wiretap a candidate. The link from there to Obama is then an easy one. You have to admit, there's smoke here.

[davew]

The statement said that neither Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen.

The FBI appears to have gotten a FISA surveillance warrant. The FBI is under DOJ, headed by the AG. Neither the AG nor anyone at the FBI are White House officials.

I love cheap political drama. :popcorn:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/04/trump-obama-was-tapping-my-phones/

In logic class, they teach you 2 negatives are a positive

Neither + nor = positive

[Show Me the Wire]

I love cheap political drama. :popcorn:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/04/trump-obama-was-tapping-my-phones/

It is pretty serious. A major party candidate for the office of the President being wire tapped. Shades of Watergate.

[Show Me the Wire]

In logic class, they teach you 2 negatives are a positive

Neither + nor = positive


Are you saying proper grammar is ilogical? Either, or and neither, nor.

[davew]

Are you saying proper grammar is ilogical? Either, or and neither, nor.

That could be why I am so bad at proper grammar, it is not logical.

[Tom]

Thank you for your completely unbiased opinion ! :rolleyes::lol:

You have doubts that what I said is true?
Ask Angela Merkle. OBama is a scum sucking terrorist.

[Tom]

It is pretty serious. A major party candidate for the office of the President being wire tapped. Shades of Watergate.

The dimwitted left sees this as fine, but makes up stories about Russians.
Obama did far more and worse than Putin thought of doing, but I have always said, Putin a real world leader, Obama was a hut-building terrorist. There is nothing about Obama that is acceptable to civilized people.

[Tom]

Either Obama or Trump is nuts.
A Special Investigation is warranted.

You have a doubt?

Who has a record of bugging people all over the world?
Who has a record of ignoring the constitution and doing as he pleases?
Who has such a lack of morality he would use the government to do such a thing?

[Tom]

In logic class, they teach you 2 negatives are a positive

Neither + nor = positive

In math that is true.

[Show Me the Wire]

The dems have been calling for an investigation and it looks like they will be getting one, just not the one they wanted. Obama's administration has to be one of the most dishonest and inept one ever.

First the leaks concerning discussions with the Russian ambassador resulted from wire taps on the Russian ambassador. What actually happened is the leaks most likely came from conversations of a wire tap on the nominee of a major political party for the office of the President.

This would be a bigger scandal than Watergate, using government power trying to discredit a nominee of the major opposition.

This is a very serious matter and our current AG should open an investigation immediately.

[johnhannibalsmith]

No matter what happens in the end it was all worth if for the string of classic Tom posts. :D

[Tom]

This would be a bigger scandal than Watergate

Barack Milhouse Obama.

[jk3521]

Seems like this is the Democrats "Gothcha time". Evidently, the Trump people investigating the source of the leaks stumbled upon this info. Let the chips fall where they may. God save America !

[barn32]

Yawn :sleeping:

[boxcar]

Yawn :sleeping:

I can't say I blame you. Why not sleep through this? After all, our former Muslim-in-Chief denies any wrongdoing. Who in his right mind could ever doubt the veracity of a proven, well-documented pathological liar? Certainly not you!

[OntheRail]

I can't say I blame you. Why not sleep through this? After all, our former Muslim-in-Chief denies any wrongdoing. Who in his right mind could ever doubt the veracity of a proven, well-documented pathological liar? Certainly not you!

He's a proper Mushroom... keep in the dark and feeds on the Dem's and liberal media BS... :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

Yawn :sleeping:

Let us recap the facts of this election cycle. First, the neutral DNC conspires against one of its own, Bernie, to deny him the nomination. Second, the DNC chair pilfers the debate questions from CNN and gives the questions to HRC so she can prepare for the debate. Third, AG Lynch meets with William Jefferson Clinton, husband of the aforementioned HRC, privately while HRC is under investigation for improper handling of classified information and leaks to foreign governments, then under AG Lynch the government obtains a warrant to wire tap the offices of HRC's opponent in the general election.

Leaks have resulted from the wire taps. When concerned individuals wanted to know why the government wire tapped a private citizens phone calls, we were told the leaks came from wire taps on the Russian ambassador. Currently, we are learning most likely the leaks did not result from tapping the Russian ambassador, but from wire taps on the Republican nominee.

There is too much factual information to be Yawn : :sleeping: (boring) or to be ignored. The DNC and its nominee have colluded and lied throughout the election cycle to tamper with the election process.

Former Ag Lynch should be investigated for her role in this farcically corrupt DNC as well as the former administration.

An argumentum ad lapidem response does not suffice.

[MargieRose]

Two enlightening articles with interesting reader comments about this issue:

Trump blasts Obama for ‘wiretap’ of Trump Tower during campaign

"The president’s tweets follow reports that the Obama administration asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in October 2016 to approve a wire tap of Trump Tower (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/trump-tower/)."

"Turned down by court earlier."

"It now appears that Obama used the pretense of "Russian interference" to obtain wiretap warrants against Trump. If these allegations are true, we need to immediately appoint a special Prosecutor to pursue indictments against Obama and all others involved in the extremely illegal wiretapping of Trump campaign during the election. This is exactly what Nixon was impeached and almost went to jail for. DRAIN THE SWAMP, MR. PRESIDENT."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/4/donald-trump-blasts-obama-wiretap-trump-tower-duri/


FISA and the Trump Team

"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."

"The first [FISA] request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; [sic] SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons."

"Obviously, we haven’t seen the FBI affidavits (assuming they actually exist), and we do not know lots of other relevant facts. What we have, however, suggests that someone at the FBI initially had concerns that banking laws were being violated, but when the Bureau looked into it, investigators found no crimes were being committed. Rather than drop the matter for lack of evidence of criminal offenses, the Justice Department and FBI pursued it as a national-security investigation."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap

[Tom]

History teaches us that for a democrat, he is guilty until proven to be innocent.

And then, half the time, he will later do it again.

[JustRalph]

Saw an interview with Paul Ryan. He affirms Trump was tapped by Obama.

No way in hell Obama didn't know.

I wish Trump and his cronies would just announce all bets are off and lock Hillary up first. A grand jury could indict her in a few weeks. After a fancy bail hearing for Hillary she might decide to talk.

[FantasticDan]

Saw an interview with Paul Ryan. He affirms Trump was tapped by Obama.What interview? Where?

Yesterday:

On Friday, Fox's Brett Baier asked House Speaker Paul Ryan whether he was concerned "that the Obama Administration may have been surveilling members of the Trump campaign in a pretty detailed investigation during the election?"

Ryan responded by saying: "I don't think that's the case."

[Tom]

Seriously, Dan, his track record of tapping everyone alive, and of course, those BIG EARS, you have doubts>:pound::pound::pound:

[FantasticDan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-of-nixonwatergate-plot-to-wire-tap-trump-tower/

Trump offered no citations nor did he point to any credible news report to back up his accusation, but he may have been referring to commentary on Breitbart and conservative talk radio suggesting that Obama and his administration used “police state” tactics last fall to monitor the Trump team. The Breitbart story, published Friday, has been circulating among Trump's senior staff, according to a White House official who described it as a useful catalogue of the Obama administration's activities.

Senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the wide-ranging federal investigation into Russian interference in the election said Saturday that there had been no wiretap of Trump.

Some current and former intelligence officials cast doubt on Trump's assertion.

“It's highly unlikely there was a wiretap,” said one former senior intelligence official familiar with surveillance law who spoke candidly on the condition of anonymity. The former official continued: “It seems unthinkable. If that were the case by some chance, that means that a federal judge would have found that there was either probable cause that he had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power.”

A wiretap cannot be directed at a U.S. facility, the official said, without finding probable cause that the phone lines or Internet addresses were being used by agents of a foreign power — or by someone spying for or acting on behalf of a foreign government. “You can't just go around and tap buildings,” the official said.

Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement chastising Trump for leveling a "spectacularly reckless allegation" against Obama without evidence.

Referencing Trump's description of Obama as a "bad (or sick) guy," Schiff said, "If there is something bad or sick going on, it is the willingness of the nation's chief executive to make the most outlandish and destructive claims without providing a scintilla of evidence to support them. "

Trump sent the tweets from Palm Beach, Fla., where he is vacationing this weekend at his private Mar-a-Lago estate. It has long been his practice to stir up new controversies to deflect attention from a damaging news cycle, such as the one in recent days about Sessions and Russia.
Trump had departed Washington in a fury on Friday, fuming at a senior staff meeting in the Oval Office that morning about Sessions' decision to recuse himself. Trump was angry and told his top aides that he disagreed with the attorney general's decision and that he thought the White House and Justice Department should have done more to counter the suggestion that Sessions needed to step away. The president told staff he wanted to see them fight back against what he saw as a widespread effort to destabilize his presidency, according to senior White House officials who were not authorized to speak publicly.

Bannon and White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, who normally travel with the president, stayed behind in Washington to work on health care and immigration policies and were not with Trump on Saturday when he tweeted. Bannon was expected to fly to Florida on Saturday afternoon to attend the dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump's tweets took numerous top White House aides by surprise, according to one of the White House officials. Saturday was expected to be a “down day, pretty quiet,” this official said, and there was little, if any, attempt to coordinate the president's message on the wiretapping allegations.

[riskman]

It appears Trumps 12 step program at becoming presidential is over based on Fridays tweets coming out of the White House.
Where do you even begin the coversations with the things that are happening today?
Premises are lies. Facts are lies. History is a lie. The conclusions ,the policies, motives and results are all lies.Or are they?
I am just going to sit back and watch this show because it appears this show is right out of
Trumps reality which is not reality.

[woodtoo]

Welcome back my friend to the show that never ends
We're so glad you could attend
Come inside! Come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
Move along! Move along!

Come inside, the shows about to start
guaranteed to blow your mind apart.
Rest assured you'll get your moneys worth
The greatest show in heaven, hell or earth

You've got to see the show, its a dynamo
You've got to see the show, its rock and roll

emersonlakepalmer
karn evil 9

[OntheRail]

You know I don't think President Trump... gave Obama the ceremonial Pardon for crimes commit while in office.

Could get real interesting... :popcorn:

[Tom]

No, it is just the continuing lies and baseless claims by the losingest party in history, led by the Senator from Ringling Brothers.

All that matters is outside the democrats wetting their pants in public, Trump and his people continue to work hard on fulfilling all of his campaign promises, which will do more to help the American people than anything the useless dems have done in 50+years.

The fake news not report that.

The light weights at CNN are probably drunk in the green room.
"Can I get you some more lemon, Mr. Lemon?

And the WashPo, Dan, really? Really? :pound::pound::pound:

[davew]

No, it is just the continuing lies and baseless claims by the losingest party in history, led by the Senator from Ringling Brothers.

All that matters is outside the democrats wetting their pants in public, Trump and his people continue to work hard on fulfilling all of his campaign promises, which will do more to help the American people than anything the useless dems have done in 50+years.

The fake news not report that.

The light weights at CNN are probably drunk in the green room.
"Can I get you some more lemon, Mr. Lemon?

And the WashPo, Dan, really? Really? :pound::pound::pound:

that's not fair - transgenders can now get married and raise adopted babies that did not get aborted before their birth.

And the most trustworthy black president in US history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUtDFDU4kMk

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Things are getting interesting. Obama spokesman denies administration did not order the tap, however the spokesman did not deny the wire tap. Let's see the DOJ had a relationship with candidate Clinton. Secret meeting, in Phoenix, between AG and Willy Jefferson, things that make you go hmmmm.

Interested in seeing the probable cause cited for the warrant to tap Trump Towers.

Hard to imagine the wiretap did not happen. Based on the emails that were hacked by "the Russians" which the sleazeball Dems never denied, those folks are just plain evil.

[barn32]

Hard to imagine the wiretap did not happen. Based on the emails that were hacked by "the Russians" which the sleazeball Dems never denied, those folks are just plain evil.You right-wing-whacko-nut jobs are the only reason I still hang around this site.

The entertainment here is priceless. :pound::pound::pound:

[JustRalph]

Watch from 4 min mark to 5:20

PAUL RYAN VS BRET BAIER (3/3/2017)

https://youtu.be/GNw3Y2rcb_E

[Ocala Mike]

The wiretapping would have had to be done under FISA law, i.e. probable cause that a crime was committed or that collusion with an adversarial power took place to get a warrant. Trump blaming Obama just another diversionary tactic, as he knows what's probably in the possession of the FBI.

Supposedly, Trump is quite upset with his staff over the Sessions kerfluffle, but his am tweets about the wiretapping also giving him agida.

Tom, I know your hair is on fire, but the best is yet to come - stay tuned.

[Show Me the Wire]

We need to have an investigation. Obama may not have ordered the tapping, but he had to know. We need to know when he knew, what he knew and why he allowed it, if the stated probable cause was based on due diligence to insure Trump's campaign was not colluding with Russia.

There needs to be an investigation into the tarmac meeting between William Jefferson Clinton and AG Lynch.

There seems to be some there there and not just smoke,

[Ocala Mike]

Oh, there'll be an investigation all right, but it won't be into any of those things.

Trying to create diversionary brush fires when the whole forest is ablaze not gonna do you any good, I'm afraid.

[Show Me the Wire]

Oh, there'll be an investigation all right, but it won't be into any of those things.

Trying to create diversionary brush fires when the whole forest is ablaze not gonna do you any good, I'm afraid.

This is not about diversionary brush fires. This is about a government out of control and totalitarian tactics. This is an important issue. Listen to the Ryan video. Remember Obama ordered an investigation into the election regarding collusion by the Trump campaign. The investigation concluded there was no collusion with the Russians by any member of Trump's campaign team.

So why are the dems still crying collusion, when Obama's investigation did not uncover any nefarious activity by Trump's campaign? The Obama investigation negates these allegations which are still being made by HRC surrogates.

Besides the negation of these allegations by Obama's January report there are too many problems in this scenario. If they were wiretapping a U.S. senator in his office, that is a big problem in itself. Second Obama was in-fact a surrogate for HRC and went so far to say the election was about his policies. Third, in his last two days in office Obama authorized the widespread sharing of information by the NSA. Very convenient for making leaks to delegitimize the new administration. Also, remember the news reporting about intelligence agencies not sharing reports with the President? Makes sense these agencies would not want to share with the President that they violated the law.

I agree there is going to be an investigation, but not one the dems want. Political partisanship is not what is important. Regardless of who you supported you should be concerned about the wiretapping of a political opponent, the hallmark of oppressive totalitarian government.

Bottom line if you are worried about the sanctity of the electoral process the previous DOJ actions should be very troubling to you.

[PaceAdvantage]

You right-wing-whacko-nut jobs are the only reason I still hang around this site.

The entertainment here is priceless. :pound::pound::pound:I feel the same about the left-wing-whacko-nut jobs, so I guess we're even.

[dkithore]

Thank you for your completely unbiased opinion ! :rolleyes::lol:

Didn't he Tap Angela Merkle? Our so called ally? Alas public memory is too damned short!

[lamboguy]

its good to hear that Trump doesn't like losing his privacy. maybe he can do something now about the small people like all of us that are compromised every day just like he was because the prior 2 presidents allowed this.

[jk3521]

How come when the Democrats make unsubstantiated claims it's "fake news" , but when "The President of the Trump States " does so, it's gospel around here! :faint: I have to admit,he almost got me this time ! Fake news is fake news.

[jk3521]

Didn't he Tap Angela Merkle? Our so called ally? Alas public memory is too damned short!

Like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[tucker6]

How come when the Democrats make unsubstantiated claims it's "fake news" , but when "The President of the Trump States " does so, it's gospel around here! :faint: I have to admit,he almost got me this time ! Fake news is fake news.

Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

[jk3521]

Are you trying to convince us or yourself?

Of what ? I am convinced that you trust no one, and I don't try to preach to anyone,unless they are my child or my dog . Those are the only ones I am completely responsible for.

[chadk66]

why waste the money investigating this? it'll just find that obama ordered and knew all about it then it'll never be brought up again. complete waste of time. nothing will be done about it anyway. just move on and continue to drain the swamp.

[jk3521]

why waste the money investigating this? it'll just find that obama ordered and knew all about it then it'll never be brought up again. complete waste of time.

After all, isn't that SOP in politics ?

[barn32]

I feel the same about the left-wing-whacko-nut jobs, so I guess we're even. Could you please get the terminology correct: they are left-wing Pinko Commies.

[Tom]

Tom, I know your hair is on fire, but the best is yet to come - stay tuned.

Yes, I know.
The dems have shown there is no limit to their corruption and hate of america.

The right needs to realize this and take take appropriate steps to render them powerless forever.

The integrity of the left rivals that of Germany, 1933.

Trump needs to take out the trash now.

[jk3521]

Could you please get the terminology correct: they are left-wing Pinko Commies.

That's right, but only Far right wingers are Wacko Nut Jobs. It's okay to think differently than others but not to any extreme where your ideas are unreasonable.

[johnhannibalsmith]

The second big upside here is that as of yet nobody has come with the "if he's got nothing to hide, then he shouldn't care" line. Must be a right thing.

[MutuelClerk]

Like sand through the hourglass so is our American government. It's sickening.

[classhandicapper]

This is a terrific interview with Mark Levin:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/91fNfGjZdM0

[davew]

Here is another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSdODs7XWSY

[_______]

And 24 hours later, there remains no evidence.

Our President makes unsubstantiated allegations on a regular basis. Still waiting for proof of the millions of illegals voting that tilted the popular vote to Clinton.

I'm sure that in two weeks this, like that story, will be in the rear view mirror and he will have moved onto some new fabrication to gin up his base and distract everyone else.

I guess this is what we get.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Analysis shows that 2/3 of everything Trump says only has a passing acquaintance with the truth. That's not an offhanded shot. That's really what it is.

Much like the boy who cried wolf, eventually the reasonable people will tire of his act.

[Show Me the Wire]

And 24 hours later, there remains no evidence.

Our President makes unsubstantiated allegations on a regular basis. Still waiting for proof of the millions of illegals voting that tilted the popular vote to Clinton.

I'm sure that in two weeks this, like that story, will be in the rear view mirror and he will have moved onto some new fabrication to gin up his base and distract everyone else.

I guess this is what we get.


Will you please tell me where the hard evidence about the Trump campaign? Since the actual election to the present, the dem leadership and its surrogates have been alleging such collusion. In fact, the investigation ordered by Obama, into election collusion found no evidence of any nefarious acts. Yet the media is keeping these unfounded allegations front and center, while dem leadership is calling for investigations. Investigations into what? Did they miss the special investigation Obama ordered in January?

I guess you are right that is what we get, unsupported allegations.

Moving on to the Presidents allegations an investigation must be launched, just like Obama launched an investigation, without any proof of collusion, because the allegations touched on serious matters i.e. the sanctity of the election process.

The President's allegations of wiretapping rises to a higher level of seriousness. The new allegations involve the sanctity of the election process and the abuse of governmental powers against a political opponent.

[davew]

And 24 hours later, there remains no evidence.

Our President makes unsubstantiated allegations on a regular basis. Still waiting for proof of the millions of illegals voting that tilted the popular vote to Clinton.

I'm sure that in two weeks this, like that story, will be in the rear view mirror and he will have moved onto some new fabrication to gin up his base and distract everyone else.

I guess this is what we get.


Yes give us the top secret FISA warrants so we can see who signed them. Show us all of the foreign 'spies' and what evidence was presented to make that determination.


It is a bad thing when the 'spies' are elected and appointed officials in Congress and the White House making and approving these requests....

[MutuelClerk]

There's no evidence of tampering.

There's no evidence of Russia involvement.

24 hour news = The Days Of Our Lives.

Breaking News. Breaking News. Breaking News.

Yawn.

[delayjf]

probable cause that a crime was committed or that collusion with an adversarial power took place to get a warrant

Yet no charges. My understanding is that these types of warrants are not easy to obtain, you basically have to have the goods to get the warrant. Obviously they had nothing or Trump would be indicted.

[OntheRail]

There's no evidence of tampering.
There is... but yielded nothing. But feed the BS narrative that the Obama Administration planted and further spread with his last minute EO to cast info to the 16 corners to give cover to leakers of said BS in the hopes of damaging or casting doubts. SOUR GRAPES AT ITS WORST.

There's no evidence of Russia involvement.

And the truth... shall set you free.

24 hour news = The Days Of Our Lives.

Breaking News. Breaking News. Breaking News.

Yawn .

. ..

[PaceAdvantage]

Could you please get the terminology correct: they are left-wing Pinko Commies.I guess I'm too young to be stuck on yesterday's terminology...

[PaceAdvantage]

And 24 hours later, there remains no evidence.

Our President makes unsubstantiated allegations on a regular basis. Still waiting for proof of the millions of illegals voting that tilted the popular vote to Clinton.

I'm sure that in two weeks this, like that story, will be in the rear view mirror and he will have moved onto some new fabrication to gin up his base and distract everyone else.

I guess this is what we get.Even Trump doesn't go making something like this up without there being some THERE, THERE.

His only mistake was to imply or outright state (I haven't read all the words used in this instance by Trump) that OBAMA HIMSELF ordered the surveillance.

BUT, Obama's administration (Attorney General, DOJ) would most certainly be involved in some aspect...so he's not that far off in that respect.

[Clocker]

His only mistake was to imply or outright state (I haven't read all the words used in this instance by Trump) that OBAMA HIMSELF ordered the surveillance.



Trump's tweets:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/trump-goes-nuclear-with-claim-obama-wiretapped-him-during-election.php (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/03/trump-goes-nuclear-with-claim-obama-wiretapped-him-during-election.php)

[Greyfox]

The wire tap was probably ordered on someone associated with Trump, not necessarily Trump - possibly Mike Flynn.
Only a very very few people inside the FBI and the Court would have been privy to the deposition to secure a wire tap.
On such a sensitive issue, Obama would have had to have known about it, even if he didn't order it.

[davew]

The Clinton surrogate news shows are going crazy - IF,IF,IF

but they have no problem exclaiming the Russians fixed the election.

most of the long running 'news' shows need cancelled.

[_______]

The wire tap was probably ordered on someone associated with Trump, not necessarily Trump - possibly Mike Flynn.
Only a very very few people inside the FBI and the Court would have been privy to the deposition to secure a wire tap.
On such a sensitive issue, Obama would have had to have known about it, even if he didn't order it.

There is no wire tap. This is made up from whole cloth just like the millions of illegals voting (How IS that investigation going?).

PA might be right that there is something he knows but given the lack of evidence the White House has provided to back up the unsubstantiated allegations (They are still declining to answer requests) it's likely that what he knows is that there is some seriously damaging information about his campaign's contacts with the Russians.

I'll note that last bit is pure speculation on my part. But it's hard to line up his tweeting lies with anything other than an attempt to inoculate his supporters against the future bad news.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hasn't it already been pretty much established that there was a FISA court grant in October 2016 to conduct surveillance on Trump? After a previous request was rejected in June?

The above details are NOT coming out of Trump world...

So not sure how you get this "made up out of whole cloth" opinion...

[Show Me the Wire]

His only mistake was to imply or outright state (I haven't read all the words used in this instance by Trump) that OBAMA HIMSELF ordered the surveillance.



The word "ordered" can be parsed in many ways. Certainly Obama could not "order" a wiretap in the sense a judge would order a wiretap. Everyday parlance the word "order" means to instruct someone to do something. Under every day parlance Obama certainly could have ordered to have a wiretap issued.

Don't forget Obama already eavesdropped on sitting U.S. lawmaker conversations in pursuit of his political agenda. Of course Obama did not order the wiretapping in the legal sense on sitting U.S. lawmakers in 2015, Israeli officials and Jewish groups. But he ordered the wiretapping to be done on Israeli officials and Jewish groups.

He also ordered tapping Merkel and other German officials.

I believe President Trump used "ordered" as in the everyday usage and not in the stricter legal sense of a judicial order.

[fast4522]

It is my guess Director James Comey told The President exactly where to look and for what. You folks remember when Obiden dropped the Fbomb on TV, well guess what this could turn out to be a bigger deal. So you wanted boring run of the mill stuff right, forget that shit and quick.

[_______]

Hasn't it already been pretty much established that there was a FISA court grant in October 2016 to conduct surveillance on Trump? After a previous request was rejected in June?

The above details are NOT coming out of Trump world...

So not sure how you get this "made up out of whole cloth" opinion...

No it hasn't. There is an unsourced story at a right wing news site that alleges that line of events.

It appears you and the President get information from the same place.

You, at least, haven't railed against news stories citing anonymous sources. So, you aren't a hypocrite.

[Show Me the Wire]

Hasn't it already been pretty much established that there was a FISA court grant in October 2016 to conduct surveillance on Trump? After a previous request was rejected in June?

The above details are NOT coming out of Trump world...

So not sure how you get this "made up out of whole cloth" opinion...

Speaking of "made up out of whole cloth" Sen. Coons (D) backtracked on his earlier allegations about transcripts existing which would show collusion. He now admits he has no knowledge of any conclusion or the existence of any transcripts that would prove or show collusion.

It is becoming readily apparent this whole collusion allegation is nothing but fantasy and wishful thinking by the Dem leadership and its surrogates.

[PaceAdvantage]

It would be shocking to me that Trump is making this story up. Or simply basing the claim on some unsubstantiated stories on "right-wing" news sites.

Being the President, one would think he has access to info others do not, and thus making these claims knowing some fire resides beside the smoke.

I know you and others don't give Trump any benefit of the doubt, but come on now...you really think he's making this up? That there was no surveillance going on?

And when it turns out that there was surveillance being conducted, I'm sure you and all the other who despise Trump will justify the surveillance given all the "Russian" bogeymen dancing around...

[Show Me the Wire]

No it hasn't. There is an unsourced story at a right wing news site that alleges that line of events.

It appears you and the President get information from the same place.

You, at least, haven't railed against news stories citing anonymous sources. So, you aren't a hypocrite.


Do you give credence to the unsourced stories reported to the NYT and Washington Post?

How do you know President Trump acquired this information from an unsourced story? As president Trump has access to intel you and I don't have. An allegation based on actionable intel source should not be publicly disclosed, but properly investigated by appropriate committees.

[FantasticDan]

It would be shocking to me that Trump is making this story up. Or simply basing the claim on some unsubstantiated stories on "right-wing" news sites.Follow along.. right wing radio host Mark Levin spouts that he has "evidence" that Obama wiretapped Trump. Breitbart picks up the story from Levin. Fox News picks up the story from Breitbart. Trump watches Fox News story and immediately tweets his reaction:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

And there you have it. Really, it's as simple as that.

[_______]

Do you give credence to the unsourced stories reported to the NYT and Washington Post?

How do you know President Trump acquired this information from an unsourced story? As president Trump has access to intel you and I don't have. An allegation based on actionable intel source should not be publicly disclosed, but properly investigated by appropriate committees.

I know the President isn't relying on intel because Sean Spicer this morning said the tweets were about "widely circulated media reports".

They have nothing else. Other than a chief executive who is a loose cannon and supporters willing to lap up whatever crap he shoots out on twitter.

Don't worry. You will have some other lie to be outraged over in two weeks. And this one will be in the "being investigated" file along with millions of illegal voters.

It's amazing how people that spent years deriding Obama supporters as Obots can't see the irony of now being lap dogs for a pathological billionaire.

[kingfin66]

Follow along.. right wing radio host Mark Levin spouts that he has "evidence" that Obama wiretapped Trump. Breitbart picks up the story from Levin. Fox News picks up the story from Breitbart. Trump watches Fox News story and immediately tweets his reaction:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

And there you have it. Really, it's as simple as that.

I wonder if it was the same "credible source" who gave him this intel:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794

[Show Me the Wire]

Follow along.. right wing radio host Mark Levin spouts that he has "evidence" that Obama wiretapped Trump. Breitbart picks up the story from Levin. Fox News picks up the story from Breitbart. Trump watches Fox News story and immediately tweets his reaction:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

And there you have it. Really, it's as simple as that.

Sort of like Podesta saying they lost because Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians and all the Dems and the media immediately reacted on social media and the news media wrote, unsourced stories, that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

Okay, got it.

[kingfin66]

Yet no charges. My understanding is that these types of warrants are not easy to obtain, you basically have to have the goods to get the warrant. Obviously they had nothing or Trump would be indicted.

Has it been confirmed that warrants were issued to tap Trump's phone? I have been looking all over the place and cannot find anything based in fact.

[Show Me the Wire]

I know the President isn't relying on intel because Sean Spicer this morning said the tweets were about "widely circulated media reports".

They have nothing else. Other than a chief executive who is a loose cannon and supporters willing to lap up whatever crap he shoots out on twitter.

Don't worry. You will have some other lie to be outraged over in two weeks. And this one will be in the "being investigated" file along with millions of illegal voters.

It's amazing how people that spent years deriding Obama supporters as Obots can't see the irony of now being lap dogs for a pathological billionaire.

I hope you are not alluding to me. Maybe you may want to quote all of my posts deriding Obama supporters and all my posts glorifying President Trump.

As I stated I am concerned about abuses by our government, which are usually used in totalitarian regimes. Facts are The DNC colluded with HRC to manipulate the nomination. The DNC chair stole debate questions and supplied them to HRC. That is collusion to manipulate the general election. Former AG Lynch met secretly with Bill Clinton, on the tarmac, while HRC was under investigation.

Obama used wiretapping to advance his political agenda in the past, including eavesdropping on sitting U.S. lawmakers. Obama acted as a HRC surrogate.

Too many facts to ignore the possibility Obama would not wiretapp a political opponent.

[FantasticDan]

Sort of like Podesta saying they lost because Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians and all the Dems and the media immediately reacted on social media and the news media wrote, unsourced stories, that Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.

Okay, got it.
Actually, you don't have anything. Let me help..

1. After months of investigations, US intelligence officials say the Russian government sought to disrupt the 2016 presidential election by hacking and disseminating thousands of emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton campaign.

2. One purpose, they believe, was to damage Clinton. In doing so, the Russians provided a boost to Donald Trump's bid. This was the conclusion of a declassified US intelligence assessment released in January.

3. According to the report, another aim was to undermine core political institutions like the Democratic Party and, more broadly, the US electoral system.

Here's where Trump and his team come in:

4. During the 2016 election season, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials say Russian officials and agents known to the United States were in constant contact with high-level Trump officials.

5. On at least two occasions now, Trump administration officials have been caught either lying or misleading officials about the extent and nature of those conversations.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was dismissed from his post as national security adviser, admitting he failed to disclose to Vice President Mike Pence that he and Kislyak had discussed sanctions in December.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed in his confirmation hearings that he "did not have communications with the Russians."
But, according to the Department of Justice, Sessions met twice during the campaign with their ambassador to the United States. And as Sen. Al Franken, whose question prompted Sessions' statement, deadpanned to CNN on Thursday, "the ambassador from Russia is a Russian."

A spokeswoman for Sessions suggested Wednesday night that his response stemmed from a misunderstanding of the question -- that he "was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign -- not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee."

6. There were other meetings by other Trump advisers -- a number of which have come to light only in the past few days.
As first reported in The New Yorker and The New York Times, senior Trump aide and son-in-law Jared Kushner, along with Flynn, met with Kislyak at Trump Tower in December.
Additionally, national security advisers to the campaign, J.D. Gordon and Carter Page, also met with Kislyak during the Cleveland convention, as first reported by USA Today.
Gordon confirmed the report to CNN, adding that another national security adviser, Walid Phares, also met with Kislyak, but he denied any talk of collusion.
"This is not any different than anything I said publicly and on panels," he said.
Phares emphatically denied meeting with Kislyak in Cleveland.
"I did not meet with the Russian ambassador, though I met with many other diplomats" in Cleveland, he wrote in a blog post for the New English Review on Saturday.
Page, too, said he "never did anything improper."

7. Delegates crafting the GOP platform in Cleveland did not include language calling for military assistance in Ukraine, which has been caught in a prolonged skirmish with pro-Russian separatists on and inside its eastern border.

8. Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman at the time of the convention, resigned in late August after questions arose about his ties to Russia, in particular the Kremlin-backed deposed Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovych.
Manafort left soon after CNN reported that the FBI and Justice Department were investigating whether US firms had been used to aid alleged corruption by Yanukovych's political party.

9. None of the people named above have denied these meetings and conversations took place. Several, though, have left their positions after coming under scrutiny.
Sessions recused himself Thursday from any investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia, less than 24 hours after his meetings were made public. Flynn was fired for misleading Pence. Page's fuzzy role in the campaign eventually dissipated, and Manafort stepped down after questions surrounding his work became a "distraction.

[davew]

FantasticDan - thanks for posting a timeline of what has been reported by the democrat press. - but where is the proof?

[fast4522]

FantasticDan - thanks for posting a timeline of what has been reported by the democrat press. - but where is the proof?


They have none, they smell blood only because that they can no longer smell their own shit. For acting like morons, it is only fitting that holy hell rain down on them.

[Show Me the Wire]

1. After months of investigations, US intelligence officials say the Russian government sought to disrupt the 2016 presidential election by hacking and disseminating thousands of emails stolen from the DNC and Clinton campaign.


I think we can all agree Russia sought to disrupt the election. However, Russia or whoever hacked the DNC also tried to hack The RNC too. The DNC was not the sole target. Any leaked e-mails resulted from DNC' s incompetence with cyber security.

Strike one against the idea Trump colluded with Russia to attack the DNC.

Also I am all for an investigation regarding the hacking or attempted hacking into the political committees.

2. One purpose, they believe, was to damage Clinton. In doing so, the Russians provided a boost to Donald Trump's bid. This was the conclusion of a declassified US intelligence assessment released in January.

Again the same hackers tried to hack the Repubs too amd they failed. Strike two.

Also, what report are you referring too? The investigation Obama ordered, which found no nefarious activity by Trump's team and no collusion? The report is strike three against this idea Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians.

I will concede for sake of argument after hacking the DNC may have wanted to damage HRC's chances. So what. Quantify for me how many votes did the Russians sway to Trump. Not mine. If you can't quantify the effect of the Russian hack on the DNC, it is meaningless regardless of Russia's intent.

3. According to the report, another aim was to undermine core political institutions like the Democratic Party and, more broadly, the US electoral system.

I agree that we need to safeguard our election process and I am in favor of any investigation which will strengthen and keep our election process safe.

Did the Russians infiltrate our voting system fraudulently electing Pres. Trump? Let me help you out here. The answer is no. Another strike against this fantasy about collusion.

4. During the 2016 election season, multiple current and former intelligence, law enforcement and administration officials say Russian officials and agents known to the United States were in constant contact with high-level Trump officials.

Unsourced. Again. all investigations to date, including current and the January Obama ordered investigation has shown no collusion. Another strike in helping me to understand collusion is real and not just fantasy based on Podesta's reasoning for HRC's loss.

5. On at least two occasions now, Trump administration officials have been caught either lying or misleading officials about the extent and nature of those conversations.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was dismissed from his post as national security adviser, admitting he failed to disclose to Vice President Mike Pence that he and Kislyak had discussed sanctions in December.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed in his confirmation hearings that he "did not have communications with the Russians."
But, according to the Department of Justice, Sessions met twice during the campaign with their ambassador to the United States. And as Sen. Al Franken, whose question prompted Sessions' statement, deadpanned to CNN on Thursday, "the ambassador from Russia is a Russian."

A spokeswoman for Sessions suggested Wednesday night that his response stemmed from a misunderstanding of the question -- that he "was asked during the hearing about communications between Russia and the Trump campaign -- not about meetings he took as a senator and a member of the Armed Services Committee."


Totally irrelevant. I watched the committee hearing live and AG Sessions did not lie. I understood the question when asked by Sen. Franken to be about duties of surrogates and not duties as a senator. I know senators meet with all type of foreign officials. I am with Sessions on this.

Flynn as you said was dismissed because he lied to the Veep. He again according to Obama's January investigation was not implicated in any collusion. Also, as part of the transition team he had every right to have communication with the Russians, even about sanctions. Again just wishful thinking.

The rest of your examples again are just wishful thinking and fantasy about collusion.

[Show Me the Wire]

FantasticDan - thanks for posting a timeline of what has been reported by the democrat press. - but where is the proof?

There is none.

[Tom]

Analysis shows that 2/3 of everything Trump says only has a passing acquaintance with the truth. That's not an offhanded shot. That's really what it is.

Much like the boy who cried wolf, eventually the reasonable people will tire of his act.

And Hillary was at 3/3.
Obama just about that.

What's your point?

[Tom]

Follow along.. right wing radio host Mark Levin spouts that he has "evidence" that Obama wiretapped Trump. Breitbart picks up the story from Levin. Fox News picks up the story from Breitbart. Trump watches Fox News story and immediately tweets his reaction:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106

And there you have it. Really, it's as simple as that.

And as true as that.

[OntheRail]

FantasticDan - thanks for posting a timeline of what has been reported by the democrat press. - but where is the proof?

Proof why they have a plethora... of unnamed sources with unverified allegation. Reported over and over by the lamestream media and panned by Loony Butt Hurt Dem's.

Proof... phfffff you can't handle the Proof. :pound:

[tucker6]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the Russians hack the DNC before Trump was even named the presumptive nominee? How could they be hacking for Trump when he isnt even the nominee. Maybe the Russians are good at picking horses at Monmouth too.

[NJ Stinks]

It's amazing how people that spent years deriding Obama supporters as Obots can't see the irony of now being lap dogs for a pathological billionaire.

It must be torture to think you have to defend a guy like Donny Boy. It's one thing if your kid acts like a spoiled brat with zero common sense. But when it's the guy you voted for to handle the nuclear codes and you have children and grandchildren, well, let's let this writer in the Economist say it plainly:

Of greater concern would be how Mr Trump might behave in an escalating confrontation if Russia were to rattle its nuclear sabre even more loudly. It is possible that his apparent desire to be buddies with Vladimir Putin might help defuse a dangerous situation. He is, however, notoriously thin-skinned and unable to stop himself responding to any perceived slight with vicious (verbal) attacks of his own. He also revels in braggadocio and is known to be reluctant to take advice. Marco Rubio, a rival for the Republican nomination, questioned whether he had the temperament to be put in charge of the nuclear codes. So did Hillary Clinton. They were right to do so. But it is now Mr Trump, not them, who takes the biscuit.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21709999-mr-trump-will-soon-control-americas-nuclear-codes-donald-trump-and-nuclear-codes

[buzzy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-manafort-russia-connections-fbi-donald-trump-2016-10

[fast4522]

Has it been confirmed that warrants were issued to tap Trump's phone? I have been looking all over the place and cannot find anything based in fact.

Would it be great if an investigation revealed that no judge signed a warrant but there was proof Trump's phone was a tap by the government and someone rolls over. Unlikely to occur but this would be bigger than the Russians hacking the polyester pantsuit candidate.

[woodtoo]

Crooked Hillary was behind the FISA tap, its just who she is, and Barry obliged. And here we are....again.

Rolling in her sty. The fecal matter is about to hit the whirly mechanism.

[fast4522]

We all can have a laugh.

[OntheRail]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0:popcorn:

[woodtoo]

Time for Comey to hold his own press conference and explain what the hey is going on at the FBI as head clown in chief. This is his department doing the leaking.

[woodtoo]

Crooked Hillary was behind the FISA tap, its just who she is, and Barry obliged. And here we are....again.

Rolling in her sty. The fecal matter is about to hit the whirly mechanism.

Hillary tweets:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the
Trump Organization to a Russian based bank" 10/31/2016

Note the date. She knew before anyone.
PDJT has this.:headbanger: a real poker player he is

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And Hillary was at 3/3.
Obama just about that.

What's your point?

Actually Obama was at around 25%, which means the point is that even for a politician Trump looks bad. I'm sure you've heard this hundreds of times. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

[PaceAdvantage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fNfGjZdM0:popcorn:It should be interesting to read the counter to the above video from some of the more outspoken people in this thread who continue to chant "There is no THERE, there"

[ElKabong]

I'm sure you've heard this hundreds of times. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

What a hypocrite you are. :lol: Remember when you posted Pence was leaving Trump's ticket a couple of weeks or so before the election? You said you had it on good authority. What a laugh!

You owe Tom an apology for your post above, are you man enough to do it?

You? You're entitled to your FakeNews, but not your own facts.

[OntheRail]

It should be interesting to read the counter to the above video from some of the more outspoken people in this thread who continue to chant "There is no THERE, there"

Yep... Yep.

[Fager Fan]

The Russian hacking is no big deal except that we allowed it. Hacking and spying is what all nations do, including us. We are happy and give pats on the back when our team is successful but want to cry when the other team is successful? And we want to blame the politicians not targeted by foreign government spying? Ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is the idea that Trump colluded with the Russians. It makes zero sense given it's just easier to live his life with the billions he already has than to get involved in stuff he has no inclination, desire, or need to be involved in.

Regarding the wire tapping (which everyone agrees took place with one FISS request turned down and a second one authorized), I'm not sure this is Watergate. If the current Administration has evidence of serious wrongdoing by a Presidential candidate, as proven to a FISA court, shouldn't it be investigated? I'm not saying that there were no political purposes (Obama wouldn't have made the same request of Hillary wrongdoing), but that aside, my question stands. Shouldn't any political candidate be investigated and rightfully so if their is evidence? Where the problem comes in is if the information gathered is leaked or used in any way against that person except for indicting the person for the wrongdoing they were investigating them for.

[dkithore]

It must be torture to think you have to defend a guy like Donny Boy. It's one thing if your kid acts like a spoiled brat with zero common sense. But when it's the guy you voted for to handle the nuclear codes and you have children and grandchildren, well, let's let this writer in the Economist say it plainly:

Of greater concern would be how Mr Trump might behave in an escalating confrontation if Russia were to rattle its nuclear sabre even more loudly. It is possible that his apparent desire to be buddies with Vladimir Putin might help defuse a dangerous situation. He is, however, notoriously thin-skinned and unable to stop himself responding to any perceived slight with vicious (verbal) attacks of his own. He also revels in braggadocio and is known to be reluctant to take advice. Marco Rubio, a rival for the Republican nomination, questioned whether he had the temperament to be put in charge of the nuclear codes. So did Hillary Clinton. They were right to do so. But it is now Mr Trump, not them, who takes the biscuit.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21709999-mr-trump-will-soon-control-americas-nuclear-codes-donald-trump-and-nuclear-codes

Mr. stink, I promise not to attack you personally for your point of view as I have mine. However, your quote from Economist is supposed to render a level of sophistication and authority? Sad to say, this esteemed biased paper has on staff reporters like Dr. Zacharia who was quoted to have plagiarized materials? Left leaning paper and reporters are not known to be objective or factual, IMO.

[rastajenk]

What if there's no "wrongdoing" though, simply acts or conversations that could be spun to be highly inconvenient, if not controversial? Anymore, can we trust investigators to find the truth, as opposed to reaching a finding that might be politically useful?
Shouldn't any political candidate be investigated and rightfully so if their is evidence? Where the problem comes in is if the information gathered is leaked or used in any way against that person except for indicting the person for the wrongdoing they were investigating them for.

[Fager Fan]

What if there's no "wrongdoing" though, simply acts or conversations that could be spun to be highly inconvenient, if not controversial? Anymore, can we trust investigators to find the truth, as opposed to reaching a finding that might be politically useful?

Admittedly the trustworthiness of our intel orgs is a problem right now, but I'm going with sufficient evidence for the FISA court to grant the request. If the FISA court grants it, doesn't it cover their butts?

Who makes up the FISA court? Not sure about their trustworthiness either.

[johnhannibalsmith]

FISA is an acronym for 'rubber stamp'.

[boxcar]

Left leaning paper and reporters are not known to be objective or factual, IMO.

Or even more broadly...honest.

[boxcar]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/draft-heres-the-complete-list-of-victims-from-obamas-many-wiretaps/

Scroll down past the Trump tweets for the story.

I would love to see Obama prosecuted for this! But this isn't likely because at the end of the day, some useful idiot in his administration will take the bullet for him.

[FantasticDan]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/draft-heres-the-complete-list-of-victims-from-obamas-many-wiretaps/

I would love to see Obama prosecuted for this! But this isn't likely because at the end of the day, some useful idiot in his administration will take the bullet for him.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/media/mark-levin-joel-pollak-breitbart-trump-obama/index.html

But some right-wing sites are treating Trump's unfounded claims like undeniable fact. One of the top headlines on The Gateway Pundit on Sunday read: "Incompetent AND Criminal: Obama's Wiretapping of President Trump Icing on the Cake of Worst President Ever."

:pound::puke:

[PaceAdvantage]

So unless Obama personally signed the order for this surveillance (which I'm betting DID happen...the surveillance part, not the Obama signing part), the left will be able to dismiss the whole thing as another Trump lie...:pound:

I love it...you guys are good...

[boxcar]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/06/media/mark-levin-joel-pollak-breitbart-trump-obama/index.html



:pound::puke:

I thought it was the Left who excelled in conspiracy theories. Remember Hillary's: The vast right win conspiracy against her? And now this latest one -- that Trump or the his campaign conspired with Putin to beat Hillary?

Methinks this wiretapping fiasco, though, has legs. There is much evidence to support it. And let me tell you: When someone as sharp as Mark Levin is convinced, I tend to listen. Not that he's infallible, mind you...but he doesn't go out on a limb like this and be wrong very often!

[Show Me the Wire]

So unless Obama personally signed the order for this surveillance (which I'm betting DID happen...the surveillance part, not the Obama signing part), the left will be able to dismiss the whole thing as another Trump lie...:pound:

I love it...you guys are good...

Yes they are good. The new talking point by the Obama surrogates is we know the Russians interfered, the question is now when did the Trump campaign know about this interference and what did they know.

Absolutely ridiculous.

We have seen the previous administration's surrogates deny any knowledge of a wiretap warrant. Notice and this is a glaring exclusion, the former AG has not denied any such tapping. Why is this important?

The statute allows electronic eavesdropping without a warrant. Yes, without a warrant. The NSA will intercept communications based on a phone call by the sitting President and a certificate filed by the AG, who in this case is Lynch.

At this time Lynch has not been trotted out by the Obama administration. File this under things that make you go hmmm.

[boxcar]

So unless Obama personally signed the order for this surveillance (which I'm betting DID happen...the surveillance part, not the Obama signing part), the left will be able to dismiss the whole thing as another Trump lie...:pound:

I love it...you guys are good...

It shouldn't be that difficult to find out who ordered this. Someone had to "sign off" on this. Good place to start is to find out who brought the matter twice to FISA to begin with. And then go from there...

[Show Me the Wire]

It shouldn't be that difficult to find out who ordered this. Someone had to "sign off" on this. Good place to start is to find out who brought the matter twice to FISA to begin with. And then go from there...


Look at former AG Lynch. She definitely should have to testify, under oath, during this investigation.

[woodtoo]

I think you're right Show Me, bring Lynch to Congress see what she says,
If she pleads the 5th there is something there and bring along Comey
(the useful idiot)

[davew]

I love Martha Raddatz, she interviews like she is in a debate -extremely biased

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lFDsEO9nbc

[elysiantraveller]

This whole thing is a deflection at this point.

The facts are that everyone involved in the Trump camp questioned about ties to Russia have either been proven to be lying and consequently stepped down or removed themselves from positions of power.

If the Administration had proof they would be releasing it... we all know Trump would.

[NJ Stinks]

Mr. stink, I promise not to attack you personally for your point of view as I have mine. However, your quote from Economist is supposed to render a level of sophistication and authority? Sad to say, this esteemed biased paper has on staff reporters like Dr. Zacharia who was quoted to have plagiarized materials? Left leaning paper and reporters are not known to be objective or factual, IMO.

The Economist describes it's political views below:
_______________________________________

Editor’s note: This week, to mark the 170th anniversary of the appearance of the first issue of The Economist on September 2nd 1843, this blog will answer some of the more frequently asked questions about The Economist itself.

SOME readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?

Neither, is the answer. The Economist was founded in 1843 by James Wilson, a British businessman who objected to heavy import duties on foreign corn. Mr Wilson and his friends in the Anti-Corn Law League were classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith and, later, the likes of John Stuart Mill and William Ewart Gladstone. This intellectual ancestry has guided the newspaper's instincts ever since: it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.

The concepts of right- and left-wing predate The Economist's foundation by half a century. They first referred to seating arrangements in the National Assembly in Paris during the French Revolution. Monarchists sat on the right, revolutionaries on the left. To this day, the phrases distinguish conservatives from egalitarians. But they do a poor job of explaining The Economist’s liberalism, which reconciles the left’s impatience at an unsatisfactory status quo with the right’s scepticism about grandiose redistributive schemes. So although its credo and its history are as rich as that of any reactionary or revolutionary, The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale. In most countries, the political divide is conservative-egalitarian, not liberal-illiberal. So it has no party allegiance, either. When it covers elections, it gives its endorsement to the candidate or party most likely to pursue classically liberal policies. It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 elections (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties).

More at the link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

[Show Me the Wire]

This whole thing is a deflection at this point.

The facts are that everyone involved in the Trump camp questioned about ties to Russia have either been proven to be lying and consequently stepped down or removed themselves from positions of power.

If the Administration had proof they would be releasing it... we all know Trump would.

Where is the proof of collusion? Sessions recused himself as that is the correct action. An attorney or judge should recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Of course the former AG set a bad precedent for not recusing herself from the HRC investigation after meeting privately with Bill Clinton. There is an appearance of impropriety to have a private meeting with Bill during an investigation of his wife.

Don't confuse doing the correct action as an admission of fault. The only person who resigned, resigned due to his actions with the Veep.

[boxcar]

The Economist describes it's political views below:
_______________________________________

Editor’s note: This week, to mark the 170th anniversary of the appearance of the first issue of The Economist on September 2nd 1843, this blog will answer some of the more frequently asked questions about The Economist itself.

SOME readers, particularly those used to the left-right split in most democratic legislatures, are bamboozled by The Economist’s political stance. We like free enterprise and tend to favour deregulation and privatisation. But we also like gay marriage, want to legalise drugs and disapprove of monarchy. So is the newspaper right-wing or left-wing?

Neither, is the answer. The Economist was founded in 1843 by James Wilson, a British businessman who objected to heavy import duties on foreign corn. Mr Wilson and his friends in the Anti-Corn Law League were classical liberals in the tradition of Adam Smith and, later, the likes of John Stuart Mill and William Ewart Gladstone. This intellectual ancestry has guided the newspaper's instincts ever since: it opposes all undue curtailment of an individual’s economic or personal freedom. But like its founders, it is not dogmatic. Where there is a liberal case for government to do something, The Economist will air it. Early in its life, its writers were keen supporters of the income tax, for example. Since then it has backed causes like universal health care and gun control. But its starting point is that government should only remove power and wealth from individuals when it has an excellent reason to do so.

The concepts of right- and left-wing predate The Economist's foundation by half a century. They first referred to seating arrangements in the National Assembly in Paris during the French Revolution. Monarchists sat on the right, revolutionaries on the left. To this day, the phrases distinguish conservatives from egalitarians. But they do a poor job of explaining The Economist’s liberalism, which reconciles the left’s impatience at an unsatisfactory status quo with the right’s scepticism about grandiose redistributive schemes. So although its credo and its history are as rich as that of any reactionary or revolutionary, The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale. In most countries, the political divide is conservative-egalitarian, not liberal-illiberal. So it has no party allegiance, either. When it covers elections, it gives its endorsement to the candidate or party most likely to pursue classically liberal policies. It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 elections (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties).

More at the link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

So, the Economist is immune to evolving with "new" political concepts, such as "left" and "right"? Really? That is one STATIC organization!

[elysiantraveller]

Where is the proof of collusion? Sessions recused himself as that is the correct action. An attorney or judge should recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Of course the former AG set a bad precedent for not recusing herself from the HRC investigation after meeting privately with Bill Clinton. There is an appearance of impropriety to have a private meeting with Bill during an investigation of his wife.

Don't confuse doing the correct action as an admission of fault. The only person who resigned, resigned due to his actions with the Veep.

Manafort?

Also lets be honest Sessionswasn't completely honest in his Senate Hearing...

I'm just observing from the sidelines this whole thing. It is appears to be blatant deflection.

[tucker6]

Manafort?

Also lets be honest Sessionswasn't completely honest in his Senate Hearing...

I'm just observing from the sidelines this whole thing. It is appears to be blatant deflection.

Trust me, you're as biased as the rest of us.

[Show Me the Wire]

Manafort?

Also lets be honest Sessionswasn't completely honest in his Senate Hearing...

I'm just observing from the sidelines this whole thing. It is appears to be blatant deflection.

Is it a deflection, or is it the first salvo of an offensive? After reading how broad government surveillance powers, no electronic communication is safe of government spying. Maybe the President feels, he is a victim of the too broad eavesdropping powers he may be setting the table to limit these invasive powers.

I already discussed Sessions testimony, I don't think he lied in the context of the hearing and the rambling question.

Manafort I don't know about.

[Hank]

Trust me, you're as biased as the rest of us.

Move over Kreskin!:pound:

[boxcar]

Manafort?

Also lets be honest Sessionswasn't completely honest in his Senate Hearing...

I'm just observing from the sidelines this whole thing. It is appears to be blatant deflection.

Sessions was completely honest at the hearings! He answered a very specific question with an equally specific answer. Senator Frankenstien did not ask an open-ended, unqualified question. Sessions answered accordingly.

[Clocker]

A good article by Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard about what is and isn't proven fact, including the following:



In an appearance Sunday morning on ABC's This Week, Deputy White House Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders acknowledged Trump had no proof of his claims. "He is going off of information that he's seeing that has led him to believe there's a very real potential" of the wiretapping of Trump Tower having taken place.
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2007096#!)http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2007096#!

[elysiantraveller]

Trust me, you're as biased as the rest of us.

Not really. The apathy has truly taken hold.

[boxcar]

This wiretapgate is getting worse than ever. Rush, just a few minutes ago, quoted a New York Slimes reporter Schmidt (sp?) who wrote a story on 1/20/17 that says that Trump campaign was wiretapped now counters his own earlier claim with saying there's no proof of any wiretapping! :bang::bang:

[woodtoo]

They're (press) running around like headless chickens trying to rearrange their "facts" we have leaks, there are no leaks. pathetic!
Trump knocked them off their Russian meme didn't he.

Comey , Lynch please come forward with your truths!

[woodtoo]

Okay saw a clip of L. Lynch on Fox saying "your rights have been broken
take to the streets, blood will be spilt"

The left is unhinged.:rant:

[PaceAdvantage]

Okay saw a clip of L. Lynch on Fox saying "your rights have been broken
take to the streets, blood will be spilt"

The left is unhinged.:rant:Pretty sure she didn't actually say those exact words...

[mostpost]

This wiretapgate is getting worse than ever. Rush, just a few minutes ago, quoted a New York Slimes reporter Schmidt (sp?) who wrote a story on 1/20/17 that says that Trump campaign was wiretapped now counters his own earlier claim with saying there's no proof of any wiretapping! :bang::bang:

The headline of that Michael Schmidt story was "Intercept of Russian Communications Feeds Inquiry into Trump Associates."
The wire tap was of Russia not Trump and yes, there is a difference.
While I am not sure you are capable of discerning the difference; I am sure Rush is. Which means he is simply a liar.

[mostpost]

They're (press) running around like headless chickens trying to rearrange their "facts" we have leaks, there are no leaks. pathetic!
Trump knocked them off their Russian meme didn't he.

Comey , Lynch please come forward with your truths!I think Comey did come forward. He wants the Justice Department to rebuke the Trump claims because they are false.

[woodtoo]

Pretty sure she didn't actually say those exact words...

Not exactly it was the gist. Mosty may Snope it.

[woodtoo]

I think Comey did come forward. He wants the Justice Department to rebuke the Trump claims because they are false.

You think Comey came forward? What the heck does that mean.
He is head of the FBI, come forward yourself and say whatever you want.
What a cop out calling the JD to cover his ass.

[woodtoo]

Hillary tweets:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the
Trump Organization to a Russian based bank" 10/31/2016

Note the date. She knew before anyone.
PDJT has this.:headbanger: a real poker player he is

The disappearing tweet also scrubbed from her Facebook page.:popcorn:

[davew]

there are too many groups overlapping in duties acting independently

NSA, FBI, CIA, justice department

going to be difficult to get out all the partisan appointees/employees - maybe should start with looking at peoples donations to political partys/candidates

[woodtoo]

there are too many groups overlapping in duties acting independently

NSA, FBI, CIA, justice department

going to be difficult to get out all the partisan appointees/employees - maybe should start with looking at peoples donations to political partys/candidates
Not a bad idea.
PDJT can only do so much in one day
Monday
lunch with Pence
-Rex Tillerson
-FCC chair
-travel EO
-talk to Bibi about Iran
-Natl Economic Council
-David Shulkin
-dinner w Mike Mulvaney and Tom Price
-talk to Bibi about Iran

[Clocker]

Not a bad idea.
PDJT can only do so much in one day
Monday
lunch with Pence
-Rex Tillerson
-FCC chair
-travel EO
-Natl Economic Council
-David Shulkin
-dinner w Mike Mulvaney and Tom Price

-surfing the web
-watching cable news shows
-tweeting with wild indignation in response to rumors on web and cable :p

[woodtoo]

-surfing the web
-watching cable news shows
-tweeting with wild indignation in response to rumors on web and cable :p

You know he does that on his own time.:kiss:

[highnote]

In logic class, they teach you 2 negatives are a positive

Neither + nor = positive


[QUOTE=Tom;2130377]In math that is true.


Actually, in math, that equation is not true.

For example, (-5) + (-5) <> 10.

The correct math equation is (-5) + (-5) = -10

However, in math, this equation is true: (-5) x (-5) = 10

[tucker6]

[quote=Originally Posted by davew] In logic class, they teach you 2 negatives are a positive

Neither + nor = positive





Actually, in math, that equation is not true.

For example, (-5) + (-5) <> 10.

The correct math equation is (-5) + (-5) = -10

However, in math, this equation is true: (-5) x (-5) = 10

I once heard Larry Holmes exclaim, "I ain't got none no more." I believed him.

[highnote]

I once heard Larry Holmes exclaim, "I ain't got none no more." I believed him.

LOL That's a good one.

My favorite from logic class was DeMorgan's Law.

For example:

It is not not true equals it is true.

AND:

It is not true that I did not tell the truth equals I told the truth.

The second example is why you have to listen to politicians very carefully.

Politicians will oftentimes use double negatives. If someone calls them on it, they can just say, "I misspoke".

[highnote]

If the White House, congress, DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc., had reasonable suspicion that there was criminal activity by Russians, that Russia was interfering in the U.S. elections, and that there was a tie to the Trump campaign then would it be illegal to use the law to get a wiretap warrant?

Did a Russian ambassador to the U.N. die in NY recently? Coincidence or consequence?

[mostpost]

Okay saw a clip of L. Lynch on Fox saying "your rights have been broken
take to the streets, blood will be spilt"

The left is unhinged.:rant:
I think I found the clip you are referring to. Your interpretation is idiotic. To start out, the clip is not recent. It appears to be from sometime during last years campaign. In the second place, nowhere does Lynch advocate or encourage "death or blood in the streets" She does point out that such things have occurred in the past, but says nothing about resorting to them now.

Primarily, what she was talking about was getting involved in the election and the political process. Any other interpretation is a flat out lie. Which is what you guys are really good at.

[Clocker]

Politicians will oftentimes use double negatives. If someone calls them on it, they can just say, "I misspoke".

You mean like when you said:

However, in math, this equation is true: (-5) x (-5) = 10 ;)

[classhandicapper]

I make the probability they tapped Trump at 99%.

I make the probability they found a way to do it legally at 99% even though the goal to was to get some dirt on him before the election. (see Clinton's tweet and other articles)

We are talking about scumbags, but they are smart scumbags or they all would have been in jail decades ago.

[highnote]

You mean like when you said:

;)

LOL

Good catch!

25

:bang::lol:

[highnote]

I make the probability they tapped Trump at 99%.

I make the probability they found a way to do it legally at 99% even though the goal to was to get some dirt on him before the election. (see Clinton's tweet and other articles)

We are talking about scumbags, but they are smart scumbags or they all would have been in jail decades ago.

Smart scumbags or smart people playing hardball at the highest level of the game?

[classhandicapper]

Smart scumbags or smart people playing hardball at the highest level of the game?

I guess it's a matter of who you are rooting for.

For example, I hate the idea of hacking personal emails, but now that Podesta's emails were hacked and revealed by wikileaks, I have a better idea of how extreme a scumbag he is. So I am sort of glad it happened, especially if he winds up in jail.

If Trump has illegal or compromising ties to Russia, I think it's important that we know that. But I think it's a terrible idea to bend the rules, get bad legal rulings from friendly judges or courts, put out misleading articles, make up fake excuses for doing gray area things, etc.. because you disagree with someone's politics or views.

Politics is supposed to be an honest debate about facts and issues that the public then gets to vote on. What's going on now is that the prior corrupt regime has been voted out, but still has many friends in the media and intelligence community that will say or do anything (and I mean just about anything) to try to get that power back.

IMO most of them are scumbags.

My guess is that almost all the criminals, borderline traitors, deviants etc... are going to get away with it because there are so many of them (in power, associated with those in power, in the IC, etc..) the government would practically collapse if someone actually tried to drain the swamp. In fact, Trump trying to drain the swamp and jail some of these scumbags may be what's really behind the hostility from the left. They want him and Sessions out because they might be crazy enough to actually try to jail them.

One the right, you have the war mongering sickos like the neocons who we already know will lie us into wars that costs trillions of dollars and uncountable deaths. They are just as bad or worse. They hate the fact that Trump is somewhat cozy with Putin because they never saw a country they didn't see as an enemy. They are a bunch of crazies still living in the cold war guided by an evil aggressive philosophy on foreign policy.

[woodtoo]

Primarily, what she was talking about was getting involved in the election and the political process. Any other interpretation is a flat out lie. Which is what you guys are really good at.[/QUOTE]


You're so full of it, she posted it on Facebook very recently.
Why don't you just post it here and we can all interpret after hearing it.
Lets all see what is "a flat out lie. I'll check back in ten minuets.

Loretta Lynch speech; blood in the streets

[JustRalph]

I have to say, Loretta Lynch, like any good lawyer is very good at walking right up to the verbal edge and stopping just in time to send a message without having verbalize it.

[chadk66]

wow the left is unraveling in a hurry now. can't even stop the bleeding.

[MargieRose]

"The following video was recently shown on Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7DsCeTfwM

From Snopes:

"On 28 February 2017, Senate Democrats posted a short video (https://www.facebook.com/pg/USSenateDemocrats/videos/?ref=page_internal) statement from former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch."

Also, according to Snopes:

"We reached out both to Lynch’s representatives and the Senate Democratic Caucus seeking comment, but Lynch’s wording that “They’ve marched, they’ve bled, and yes, some of them died” appears to be a reference to the deaths (https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs) of activists who took part in the Civil Rights movement and not an exhortation that dissenters should engage in extreme violence to oppose current administration actions."

Appears??...not exactly an affirmation directly from Loretta Lynch!

Recently, Obama and Hillary Clinton have made statements encouraging supporters to oppose the current administration through protests. Now, Loretta Lynch chimes in planting more seeds. It is difficult NOT to interpret Lynch's words as an attempt to incite more discord with a subliminal message to include violence..."We did it before, we can do it again."

[Tom]

I have to say, Loretta Lynch, like any good lawyer is very good at walking right up to the verbal edge and stopping just in time to send a message without having verbalize it.

She needs to be arrested and send to GITMO for "interrogation."
And he followers need to meet up the National Guard form some severe beatings. No great loss.

[woodtoo]

"The following video was recently shown on Fox News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX7DsCeTfwM

From Snopes:

"On 28 February 2017, Senate Democrats posted a short video (https://www.facebook.com/pg/USSenateDemocrats/videos/?ref=page_internal) statement from former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch."

Also, according to Snopes:

"We reached out both to Lynch’s representatives and the Senate Democratic Caucus seeking comment, but Lynch’s wording that “They’ve marched, they’ve bled, and yes, some of them died” appears to be a reference to the deaths (https://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/civil-rights-memorial/civil-rights-martyrs) of activists who took part in the Civil Rights movement and not an exhortation that dissenters should engage in extreme violence to oppose current administration actions."

Appears??...not exactly an affirmation directly from Loretta Lynch!

Recently, Obama and Hillary Clinton have made statements encouraging supporters to oppose the current administration through protests. Now, Loretta Lynch chimes in planting more seeds. It is difficult NOT to interpret Lynch's words as an attempt to incite more discord with a subliminal message to include violence..."We did it before, we can do it again."

Thanks again, I like your assessment they can be so ....united!

where are your thoughts postie?

[chadk66]

who snopes snopes?:pound:

[woodtoo]

who snopes snopes?:pound:
snopes dopes snopes snopes

[woodtoo]

Anyway she was the AG when the transfer of power was supposed to occur.

If I recall right she met Bill Clinton in a hanger, not at hooters.

Jets are on now

[_______]

I enjoy my time here enough not to want to get banned but if it weren't for that, I'd spend the next 4 years resurrecting this thread on a weekly basis to ask how the investigation was going.

Did it reveal more than the millions of illegal voters investigation or whatever has his aides face-palming themselves next week?

Here's the dynamic:

1) Trump self destructs on twitter
2) White House declines to provide evidence while calling for investigation.
3) Internet Lap Dogs leap snarling to his defense.
4) Enough time passes that someone suggests he might finally be acting presidential.

and then...

Lather, rinse, and repeat.

[Tom]

Yeah, that' it.
Pretty good entertainment.
Watching the left make total asses of themselves.

How about your for AG calling for violence?
No comments about HER break down on Twitter?

OH,wait, I forgot - the left doesn't care about dead Americans.
The left is a cesspool of degenerates.

At its best.

So look at this way, no matter WHAT is uncovered to be true, from now on, 50% of America will believe Obama wire tapped Trump and that he is a scumbag for doing it.

Recognise the play? It's right of the democrat playbook.
But now, WE are using it.

You have to love this little guy......:pound::pound::pound:

[PaceAdvantage]

I think I found the clip you are referring to. Your interpretation is idiotic. To start out, the clip is not recent. It appears to be from sometime during last years campaign. In the second place, nowhere does Lynch advocate or encourage "death or blood in the streets" She does point out that such things have occurred in the past, but says nothing about resorting to them now.

Primarily, what she was talking about was getting involved in the election and the political process. Any other interpretation is a flat out lie. Which is what you guys are really good at.Or you could have copied my reply to him where I wrote "she didn't actually say those words."

Save yourself a lot of typing.

[_______]

Yeah, that' it.
Pretty good entertainment.
Watching the left make total asses of themselves.

How about your for AG calling for violence?
No comments about HER break down on Twitter?

OH,wait, I forgot - the left doesn't care about dead Americans.
The left is a cesspool of degenerates.

At its best.

So look at this way, no matter WHAT is uncovered to be true, from now on, 50% of America will believe Obama wire tapped Trump and that he is a scumbag for doing it.

Recognise the play? It's right of the democrat playbook.
But now, WE are using it.

You have to love this little guy......:pound::pound::pound:

If Loretta Lynch had actually said anything close to what you think she did, I'd call her an ass.

It would be easy because I'm not 3 feet up her colon.

[Hank]

This thread confirms it once and for all.:lol:

[woodtoo]

If Loretta Lynch had actually said anything close to what you think she did, I'd call her an ass.

It would be easy because I'm not 3 feet up her colon.

How could I have missed the real meaning ,her desperate plea for a united
America of course.
What was misinterpreted earlier is,
"Peace on earth and good will to mankind"........right.....carry on
Democrats forever unite in peace in our streets.
Hail Obama forever for he is king of all.

[boxcar]

Hail Obama forever for he is king of all.

Oh...right on brother. Preach it. Obama is a legend in his own sick, narcissistic mind. I'm sure he believes he's the King of kings and Lord of lords -- the savior of the whole world. His mission is just and righteous. :rolleyes:

[davew]

Robby Mook says conversations were captured because intelligence told them so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veBaIcDoaFI

[OntheRail]

Robby Mook says conversations were captured because intelligence told them so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veBaIcDoaFI

What a fitting name... Mook.

Funny Hillary's Campaign Manager... has insight on the WHY's of the wiretapping.

Hillary's tweet points to the fact that there was collision between the Obama IC and Clinton camp to plant a narrative, deflect and discredit Trump in the hopes of winning aided by the media.

Anyone else find this funny? (not the humorous ha ha funny but the smelly kind)

[woodtoo]

He sounds as truthful as Loretta Lynch.:pound:

[OntheRail]

And add in the fact of Obama's last minute "Dust in the Wind Intel dissemination EO. They can hind the leakers of fake by omissions of facts... smoke. But the people can see the dirt on the Lefts hands.

Only the Butt Hurt are fooled.

[davew]

Only the Butt Hurt are fooled.

Maybe not. Some on the left will do anything to get what they want - they don't follow no dang laws, they are above all that.

[davew]

This guy says they found 'listening devices' in Trump tower in/near the campaign headquarters and some are calling it '0bamagate'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X17OFrTp0Q&t=26s

[jk3521]

This guy says they found 'listening devices' in Trump tower in/near the campaign headquarters and some are calling it '0bamagate'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X17OFrTp0Q&t=26s

Who the heck is this guy, and how is he privy to this info ?

The Republic Broadcasting Network :lol:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_Broadcasting_Network

[jk3521]

More on "The Republic Broadcasting Network" ..

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0402/Guardians-of-the-free-Republics-tied-to-Texas-radio-station


I mean to tell you, you guys will listen to any body who even comes close to sharing your views. That's dangerous. That goes for the lefties also !

Quote : "Republic Broadcasting Network is well known to people who study extremism , as well as to the F.B.I."

[davew]

Mike Rivero has a better correct rate than the big networks. But the big networks rarely if ever admit they were wrong.

[jk3521]

Mike Rivero has a better correct rate than the big networks. But the big networks rarely if ever admit they were wrong.

But he's nobody! How many listeners does he have, a few thousand ? Maybe he guesses right once in a while,but so do we all. Plus can you trust his motives being with the organization that he is associated with ? I'd wait until evidence is forthcoming.

[NJ Stinks]

More on "The Republic Broadcasting Network" ..

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0402/Guardians-of-the-free-Republics-tied-to-Texas-radio-station


I mean to tell you, you guys will listen to any body who even comes close to sharing your views. That's dangerous. That goes for the lefties also !



No it doesn't. Hell, lefties don't even bother with liberal radio shows and barely tune into MSNBC at night.

[jk3521]

No it doesn't. Hell, lefties don't even bother with liberal radio shows and barely tune into MSNBC at night.

Yeah, but you'll surely tune in to those shows if there were some juicy development about a scandal concerning the opposition. It's human nature.

[Tom]

who snopes snopes?:pound:

Wasn't he one of the 7 dwarfs?

Grumpy, Doc, Snopes, Happy, Sleezy, Dopey, and Opey ?

[Greyfox]

The Head of the House Intelligence Committee reported today that Donald Trump and various team and family members from his campaign were picked up by surveillance activities incidentally.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

[classhandicapper]

The Head of the House Intelligence Committee reported today that Donald Trump and various team and family members from his campaign were picked up by surveillance activities incidentally.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366


So basically if I was a sitting president and I wanted to surveil a candidate for the presidency I could get around the illegality of wiretapping him by legally surveiling some Russian ambassadors, Russian businessmen that I "think" may have ties to Russian gangsters or Putin, etc... and see if I could get any disqualifying or juicy dirt that I could spin into attacks against him.

I am rapidly losing any innocence and naivety I had left (and I was already wildly cynical). I'm at the point where I fully understand how and why there are dictatorships in the world that round up and jail political opponents, close down newspapers, purge intelligence and military personnel etc...

If you come to power legally and people that are supposed to follow your direction, enforce the law, report facts in an unbiased fashion, etc... are all lying, spinning, breaking laws, and doing everything in their power to destroy you, F them. I would feel the urge to round them all up and purge them too.

To quote Chris Rock, "I'm not saying it's right, but I get it".

How can you watch what's going on these days and not feel that the mainstream media and much of the intelligence community is an out and out enemy of the American people.

[ArlJim78]

Incidental surveillance? I love it.
Keep moving folks, nothing to see here.

[JustRalph]

I'm sure they've been doing it for years. This goes back to Gingerich in 1997

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/26/us/couple-fined-1000-on-gingrich-phone-call.html

The Dems will do anything

"
The Martins said they heard the Speaker's voice on their scanner in December and taped the conversation to capture history.

The recording, which the Martins turned over to a Democratic House member, caused an uproar on Capitol Hill."