hmmmmmm strange days we live in
- Thread starter pmclaine
- Start date
1. Before Trump's tweets, the reports of FISA Court being asked permission to conduct surveillance inside of Trump Tower were out there, but no one was paying them much attention.
2. A phone call between retired Genera Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador was recorded and subsequently leaked to the press. Flynn was inside of Trump Tower when that phone conversation was recorded. The Russian Ambassador was in the Russian Embassy.
So, at this point, the Obama Intelligence service has to own up to either tapping the Russians in their sovereign territory or to tapping a US citizen in Trump Tower.
3. The kicker.... one of Obama's last orders, signed in January, authorized intelligence agencies to share unconfirmed information obtained from foreign sources (such as Russian Embassy for example) across agencies.
Back to point 1.
2. A phone call between retired Genera Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador was recorded and subsequently leaked to the press. Flynn was inside of Trump Tower when that phone conversation was recorded. The Russian Ambassador was in the Russian Embassy.
So, at this point, the Obama Intelligence service has to own up to either tapping the Russians in their sovereign territory or to tapping a US citizen in Trump Tower.
3. The kicker.... one of Obama's last orders, signed in January, authorized intelligence agencies to share unconfirmed information obtained from foreign sources (such as Russian Embassy for example) across agencies.
Back to point 1.
Trump needs to shine the light of day on all the inetel collected. sources and methods dont matter any more, no secrets left after the last 8 years and prob longer. Our intel services are not worth the $ we are paying for them. Roll all intel ops under the Army and Navy like they used to be. Disband every and all civilians, no pensions until they pass a lie detector test.
Even if what Trump says were not true (though it likely is) it is pure Genius on his part. He just flipped their false reporting and strategic leaks right back on them. Now the story is pointed toward them. How can they deny it after they have been using it like a club for months? He just turned them from offense to defense...game on.
The fact that it is likely true puts Trump in a even better position. He is Pres he has the power to declassify anything he wants, and he just put a 5 incher across their bow. Stay tuned, this is going to get good.
The fact that it is likely true puts Trump in a even better position. He is Pres he has the power to declassify anything he wants, and he just put a 5 incher across their bow. Stay tuned, this is going to get good.
If you watch and listen closely the Obama defenders are saying carefully worded things to not perjure themselves.
"President Obama didn't directly order any wiretaps on Mr. Trump." - There's a LOT of wiggle room in that statement.
"President Obama didn't directly order any wiretaps on Mr. Trump." - There's a LOT of wiggle room in that statement.
The Power of the Presidency Trumps all others. look it up.
FS1 you are correct in the short term. My fear is that if President Trumps statments cannot be becked up with evidence then that will provide a powerful lever for the media to use to pry a segment of Trump supporters loose, and provide cover for RINO Republicans to side with Democrats. In general the people who voted for President Trump are honest people who believe that "thy shall not bear false witness" so President Trump stands to loose the base if he can not prove this.
I'm pretty sure he is much smarter than I am so I'm willing to bet that he will prove it.
Gunfighter, you make a great point, but you have to ask who is at the top of the chain of command. The General can always change the orders the noncom gave.
I am willing to bet he won't have too. I think all of a sudden like, these leaks will dry up. The other possibility is the other side doubles down and releases worse info. But they won't because Trump can selectively release anything he wants. Lets say they hit back. Then Trump declassifies something that makes Obama look real bad (which won't be hard) but nothing is declassified about him. Trump can destroy Obama and Obama knows it.
You see Trump was supposed to lose to Hillary and Obama's deeds would have been safe. But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House...The people did not buy the lefts BS and that changed everything. The People even saw through the Russia bullshit. Obama thought Trump would go down easy....Obama thought wrong.
Prezactly.
Plan was for crooked shillary to be in office. If that were the case, even if any Trump camp allegations of illegal surveillance surfaced, they would have been ridiculed to no end by the libtard MSM. The gov't wouldn't have to raise a finger, beyond offering the same plausibly deniable statement.
Thankfully, FREEDOM rang on 11/8, and...
Now there'll hafta be some 'splainin' to do...
Plan was for crooked shillary to be in office. If that were the case, even if any Trump camp allegations of illegal surveillance surfaced, they would have been ridiculed to no end by the libtard MSM. The gov't wouldn't have to raise a finger, beyond offering the same plausibly deniable statement.
Thankfully, FREEDOM rang on 11/8, and...
Now there'll hafta be some 'splainin' to do...
I want to know more about the timing / potential connection to the June 27th, 2106 meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at AZA and the FISA court activities occurring that same month.
If the petitions to the court were examined they would answer the “who” part of the equation and show that Obama is playing word games (lying) regarding his involvement. My own opinion is this is all the same big ball of wax - the election / Obama’s monkey wrenching / surveillance / all of it (and more we have not been made aware of).
If the petitions to the court were examined they would answer the “who” part of the equation and show that Obama is playing word games (lying) regarding his involvement. My own opinion is this is all the same big ball of wax - the election / Obama’s monkey wrenching / surveillance / all of it (and more we have not been made aware of).
Last edited:
A good read here.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-fisa-tapping-glenn-reynolds-column/98779170/
[h=1]Did Obama spy on Trump? Glenn Reynolds[/h] Glenn Harlan ReynoldsPublished 10:25 a.m. ET March 6, 2017 | Updated 14 hours ago
[h=2]It isn't out of the question. The former president's administration wiretapped journalists and spied on Congress.[/h]
(Photo: Michael Reynolds, epa)
12164CONNECTTWEET 1LINKEDIN 213COMMENTEMAILMORE
So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be at true is that the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what authority and who was targeted.
As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy summarizes in National Review, the Obama Justice Department considered a criminal investigation aimed at a number of Trump’s associates. When they didn’t find anything criminal, they converted the investigation into an intelligence probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Elements of that story have been confirmed by The New York Times, the BBC and McClatchy newspapers.
FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked. But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC. As McCarthy writes, this is notable because “the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance.”
Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn’t specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones..
Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls “disingenuous on several levels.” Others have characterized them as a "non-denial denial.”
A 'living Constitution' on the right?: Glenn Reynolds
Trump must expose Obama-era power grabs: Column
To the Obama camp’s claim that the president didn’t “order” surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:
It’s certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn’t be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama’s political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress.
Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.
Trump has called for a congressional investigation, but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation, it will turn out that nothing improper happened — that this is a lot of smoke, but that there’s no fire. But we can’t know without an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process, those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.
Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant, deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was — as it appears to have been — excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as First Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.
Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we’re dealing with something worse. Hopefully not, but there’s no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Let’s shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-fisa-tapping-glenn-reynolds-column/98779170/
[h=1]Did Obama spy on Trump? Glenn Reynolds[/h] Glenn Harlan ReynoldsPublished 10:25 a.m. ET March 6, 2017 | Updated 14 hours ago
[h=2]It isn't out of the question. The former president's administration wiretapped journalists and spied on Congress.[/h]
(Photo: Michael Reynolds, epa)
12164CONNECTTWEET 1LINKEDIN 213COMMENTEMAILMORE
So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be at true is that the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what authority and who was targeted.
As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy summarizes in National Review, the Obama Justice Department considered a criminal investigation aimed at a number of Trump’s associates. When they didn’t find anything criminal, they converted the investigation into an intelligence probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Elements of that story have been confirmed by The New York Times, the BBC and McClatchy newspapers.
FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked. But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC. As McCarthy writes, this is notable because “the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance.”
Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn’t specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones..
Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls “disingenuous on several levels.” Others have characterized them as a "non-denial denial.”
A 'living Constitution' on the right?: Glenn Reynolds
Trump must expose Obama-era power grabs: Column
To the Obama camp’s claim that the president didn’t “order” surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:
First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that ‘orders’ surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about — an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents — it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.
And as journalist Mickey Kaus commented on Twitter, there’s a reason why presidents name trusted allies as attorney general. As close as former attorney general Loretta Lynch was to Obama, and as supportive as she was of his political goals, it seems very unlikely that this was some sort of rogue operation.It’s certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn’t be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama’s political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress.
Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.
Trump has called for a congressional investigation, but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation, it will turn out that nothing improper happened — that this is a lot of smoke, but that there’s no fire. But we can’t know without an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process, those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.
Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant, deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was — as it appears to have been — excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as First Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.
Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we’re dealing with something worse. Hopefully not, but there’s no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, “Democracy dies in darkness.” Let’s shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.
Only problem with this theory working is that Trump needs allies and backing of his party. I think the establishment Republicans, still at the levers of power, will collude with Obama, and use it as a chip against the Dems later, if they can get rid of Trump.
Really all Trump has is the people that voted for him.
Sad but 60+ million are looked at as an inconvenience by what amounts to maybe 1000 or so snakes.
Looks like Wikileaks may be getting in the game......
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4289942/WikiLeaks-publish-1000s-says-CIA-documents.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4289942/WikiLeaks-publish-1000s-says-CIA-documents.html
That inconvenience is behind Trump. It would be a perilous journey for all who go after him. Wait till we see what happens in 2018. I think the Dems may just have committed Political suicide. This Election proved The People are smarter then the Politicians think.
That was quite a winning streak they had going. Last two paragraphs mean everything.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...a-court-denied-0-9400-electronic-surveillance
[h=1]9,400 to Zero: For 6 Years, Spy Court Denied No Electronic Surveillance Applications[/h] By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 6, 2017 | 7:25 PM EST
CNSNews.com) - In the last six years on record (2010-2015), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court did not deny a single application out of the 9,400 the government submitted seeking authority “to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes” under the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to reports filed by the U.S. Justice Department.
The last time the court denied an electronic surveillance application under FISA was 2009. That year, the court denied one application outright and denied another in part.
The latest annual report from the Justice Department to Congress on the disposition of FISA requests was delivered on April 28, 2016. Signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik, it covers calendar year 2015.
“[T]his report provides information regarding all applications made by the government during calendar year 2015 for authority to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes under the Act,” Kadzik says in the first paragraph of the report.
This annual report—and those going back to 1996—are available at DOJ’s online Freedom of Information Act library.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"252","width":"789","src":"http:\/\/www.cnsnews.com\/s3\/files\/styles\/content_100p\/s3\/fisa-chart-final.jpg?itok=dJN2iWS-"}[/IMG2]
Although the court denied none of the government’s applications for electronic surveillance under FISA from 2010 through 2015, the court did modify some of those it approved and the government withdrew some of those it submitted.
From 2010 through 2015, the government submitted a total of 9,400 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking the authority to conduct electronic surveillance.
Of those 9400, the court approved 9,391 and the government withdrew 9. The court also modified 217 of those it approved.
It denied none.
In a July 29, 2013 letter to then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), Judge Reggie B. Walton, then the court’s presiding judge, explained why the court approved such a high rate of government applications to conduct electronic surveillance under FISA.
The administration and the court go through a consultation process that starts when the administration submits a “proposed application” to the court’s staff.
“[A] proposed application must be submitted by the government no later than seven days before the government seeks to have the matter entertained,” Walton wrote.
“Upon the court’s receipt of a proposed application for an order under FISA,” the judge said, “a member of the court’s legal staff reviews the application and evaluates whether it meets the legal requirements under the statute. As part of this evaluation, a court attorney will often have one or more telephone conversations with the government to seek additional information and/or raise concerns about the application.”
The court attorney “then prepares a written analysis of the application for the duty judge.”
“The judge typically makes a preliminary determination at that time about what course of action to take,” wrote Walton.
“A staff attorney will then relay the judge’s inclination to the government, and the government will typically proceed by providing additional information, or submitting a final application (sometimes with amendments, at the government’s election) for the court’s ruling…”
“In some cases,” wrote Walton, “the government may decide not to submit a final application, or to withdraw one that has been submitted, after learning that the judge does not intend to approve it.
“The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General pursuant to 50 USC §§ 1807 and 1862(b)—frequently cited in press reports as a suggestion that the court’s approval rate of applications is over 99 percent—reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the court,” wrote Walton.
The court has eleven judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
A 2014 Congressional Research Service report described its “non-adversarial fashion” of operating.
“I addition to the judges, the FISC has a staff of five full-time legal advisors with expertise in foreign intelligence issues,” said CRS. “These legal advisers are said to conduct a thorough ‘vetting’ of all applications before the government presents them formally to the FISC judges.
“In light of the sensitive nature of its docket,” said CRS, “the FISA courts operate largely in secret and in a non-adversarial fashion.”
In 2009, the last year in which the court denied a final electronic surveillance application, the Justice Department submitted 1,329 applications for electronics surveillance, according to the annual report. The court approved 1,320, while modifying 14 that it approved. The government withdrew 8.
In addition, to the one application the court denied outright that year, it also denied one application in part.
In the seven years from 2009 through 2015, the Justice Department submitted 10,729 electronic surveillance applications to the court and the court approved 10,711. It approved 231 of those with modifications and the government withdrew 17. In those seven years, the only application denied was the one denied in 2009. The only one denied in part was the one denied in part in 2009.
In the thirteen years from 1996 through 2008, there were nine years when the court did not deny any of the government’s FISA applications for what the reports refer to as “electronic surveillance and physical search” or “electronic surveillance or physical search.”
In 2003, the court denied four FISA applications for “electronic surveillance and physical search;” in 2007, it denied 3; and in 2008, it denied one. It also denied one in part in 2006 and one in part in 2007.
The report for 2003 notes that in two of the four cases that were denied that year, the government eventually got approval for surveillance.
The FISA law requires that the attorney general approve applications for electronic surveillance under the act. “Each application,” the law says, “shall require the approval of the attorney general based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter.”
The law defines the “attorney general as “the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or, upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...a-court-denied-0-9400-electronic-surveillance
[h=1]9,400 to Zero: For 6 Years, Spy Court Denied No Electronic Surveillance Applications[/h] By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 6, 2017 | 7:25 PM EST
CNSNews.com) - In the last six years on record (2010-2015), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court did not deny a single application out of the 9,400 the government submitted seeking authority “to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes” under the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to reports filed by the U.S. Justice Department.
The last time the court denied an electronic surveillance application under FISA was 2009. That year, the court denied one application outright and denied another in part.
The latest annual report from the Justice Department to Congress on the disposition of FISA requests was delivered on April 28, 2016. Signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik, it covers calendar year 2015.
“[T]his report provides information regarding all applications made by the government during calendar year 2015 for authority to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes under the Act,” Kadzik says in the first paragraph of the report.
This annual report—and those going back to 1996—are available at DOJ’s online Freedom of Information Act library.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"252","width":"789","src":"http:\/\/www.cnsnews.com\/s3\/files\/styles\/content_100p\/s3\/fisa-chart-final.jpg?itok=dJN2iWS-"}[/IMG2]
Although the court denied none of the government’s applications for electronic surveillance under FISA from 2010 through 2015, the court did modify some of those it approved and the government withdrew some of those it submitted.
From 2010 through 2015, the government submitted a total of 9,400 applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking the authority to conduct electronic surveillance.
Of those 9400, the court approved 9,391 and the government withdrew 9. The court also modified 217 of those it approved.
It denied none.
In a July 29, 2013 letter to then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), Judge Reggie B. Walton, then the court’s presiding judge, explained why the court approved such a high rate of government applications to conduct electronic surveillance under FISA.
The administration and the court go through a consultation process that starts when the administration submits a “proposed application” to the court’s staff.
“[A] proposed application must be submitted by the government no later than seven days before the government seeks to have the matter entertained,” Walton wrote.
“Upon the court’s receipt of a proposed application for an order under FISA,” the judge said, “a member of the court’s legal staff reviews the application and evaluates whether it meets the legal requirements under the statute. As part of this evaluation, a court attorney will often have one or more telephone conversations with the government to seek additional information and/or raise concerns about the application.”
The court attorney “then prepares a written analysis of the application for the duty judge.”
“The judge typically makes a preliminary determination at that time about what course of action to take,” wrote Walton.
“A staff attorney will then relay the judge’s inclination to the government, and the government will typically proceed by providing additional information, or submitting a final application (sometimes with amendments, at the government’s election) for the court’s ruling…”
“In some cases,” wrote Walton, “the government may decide not to submit a final application, or to withdraw one that has been submitted, after learning that the judge does not intend to approve it.
“The annual statistics provided to Congress by the Attorney General pursuant to 50 USC §§ 1807 and 1862(b)—frequently cited in press reports as a suggestion that the court’s approval rate of applications is over 99 percent—reflect only the number of final applications submitted to and acted on by the court,” wrote Walton.
The court has eleven judges appointed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
A 2014 Congressional Research Service report described its “non-adversarial fashion” of operating.
“I addition to the judges, the FISC has a staff of five full-time legal advisors with expertise in foreign intelligence issues,” said CRS. “These legal advisers are said to conduct a thorough ‘vetting’ of all applications before the government presents them formally to the FISC judges.
“In light of the sensitive nature of its docket,” said CRS, “the FISA courts operate largely in secret and in a non-adversarial fashion.”
In 2009, the last year in which the court denied a final electronic surveillance application, the Justice Department submitted 1,329 applications for electronics surveillance, according to the annual report. The court approved 1,320, while modifying 14 that it approved. The government withdrew 8.
In addition, to the one application the court denied outright that year, it also denied one application in part.
In the seven years from 2009 through 2015, the Justice Department submitted 10,729 electronic surveillance applications to the court and the court approved 10,711. It approved 231 of those with modifications and the government withdrew 17. In those seven years, the only application denied was the one denied in 2009. The only one denied in part was the one denied in part in 2009.
In the thirteen years from 1996 through 2008, there were nine years when the court did not deny any of the government’s FISA applications for what the reports refer to as “electronic surveillance and physical search” or “electronic surveillance or physical search.”
In 2003, the court denied four FISA applications for “electronic surveillance and physical search;” in 2007, it denied 3; and in 2008, it denied one. It also denied one in part in 2006 and one in part in 2007.
The report for 2003 notes that in two of the four cases that were denied that year, the government eventually got approval for surveillance.
The FISA law requires that the attorney general approve applications for electronic surveillance under the act. “Each application,” the law says, “shall require the approval of the attorney general based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter.”
The law defines the “attorney general as “the Attorney General of the United States (or Acting Attorney General), the Deputy Attorney General, or, upon the designation of the Attorney General, the Assistant Attorney General designated as the Assistant Attorney General for National Security.”
That inconvenience is behind Trump. It would be a perilous journey for all who go after him. Wait till we see what happens in 2018. I think the Dems may just have committed Political suicide. This Election proved The People are smarter then the Politicians think.
I hope your right about the first part. I know you are right about the last part.
Might explain why Loretta seems so washed out, unbalanced and desperate in her sedition video.
Like she got used on a Friday night, and dumped on a Saturday morning, but she's still praying that he's coming back to the motel with breakfast and smokes.
They'll work their way up to her with immunity deals and then she'll say she doesn't recall. End of trail.
Bernie had his price. She will, too.
"wiregate"
Just remember the repubs approved the AG's Obama put forward. They are partners in high crimes.
Well, this has certainly been an entertaining thread...
There is no difference between either party, this is why Trump is having so much trouble. It, is, has, and always will be them, Vs us until we strip them of the power we allowed and they have stolen over the last 240 + years.
^^^^ dis rite hurr
I sure 20 years of no stress in the Federal Pen will help.
I do hope he has the goods to back it up, burn their house of cards to the ground!
Not my comments below. Presented as an FYI - how Barry can say he did not “directly”......also remember we have engaged foreign intel services to do the same in the past.
As pmclaine said...........hope he can back his play.
This is like a stealth news piece. I haven't seen it replayed on any establishment sources, I haven't even seen it replayed on Drudge or Breitbart.
Other news you wont see....illegal border crossings down 40% in February. That's the result of just talk and stating we will enforce our laws. Wait until Border Patrol gets up to speed. The wall is a good idea where crossing is easy and a barrier will be an obstacle but a metaphorical wall will work fine as long as law, and the will to enforce it, are the real barrier.
and jobs are up......crickets.
Last edited:
I don't think Putin could have written it better himself.
The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced a deal with the devil was being negotiated by the Trump campaign and they got busted. If there was a petition to put the campaign under surveillance because via intel collected on the Russians then I don't see that a problem at all.
If it came to pass that Bernie, solicited or accepted the help of the Russians to subvert the Clinton and then Trump campaign through leaks and hacked data to win the presidency you lot would be throwing a shit fit. Rightly so.
It seems we hate the dirty tricks of the dems, as we should, but we're all behind unsubstantiated, evidence free accusations when it's our guy making them and possible backroom deals with foreign countries whose history is chock full of anti-American agendas. We're worried about muslims when we should be worried about Ivans.
I remember when Snowden and wikileaks were first on the scene and the condemnation they received from mostly the same people in this thread who are referencing them now as sources of truth and fact. Funny that. Or not.
And what do you base this on?
All reports are there is no Russia/Trump link. There may be a Russia hack against the Dems but there is no link that Trump was involved with that. There is indication that under Obamas presidency intel agencies were directed to focus on either Trump or his surrogates.
What do you base this on? Your Dem talking points? Are you Susan Rice?
What do I base this on?
Well, first there was that rather public request from Trump to Russia to hack the Dems. Then there's the rather safe assumption that the Russians are always under surveillance. Then there's the not so great leap of logic that perhaps given what Trump asked in public the Russians would seek to get in touch directly and possible gain influence on a presidential candidate.
There's no hard evidence. There's no hard evidence of wiretapping either. There's supposition based on some facts but nothing conclusive. Don't call me a Dem. It just makes you look retarded and unable to handle an opposing view point.
Well, first there was that rather public request from Trump to Russia to hack the Dems. Then there's the rather safe assumption that the Russians are always under surveillance. Then there's the not so great leap of logic that perhaps given what Trump asked in public the Russians would seek to get in touch directly and possible gain influence on a presidential candidate.
There's no hard evidence. There's no hard evidence of wiretapping either. There's supposition based on some facts but nothing conclusive. Don't call me a Dem. It just makes you look retarded and unable to handle an opposing view point.
The Trump to Russia hack was a joke - give me a break.
Agreed the Russians are under surveillance as are our diplomats. There are laws though and when that surveillance continues into a sitting Senators office when he is conducting business in the course of his duties there are issues.
You are back on the "Maybe Russia has the 33.000 emails" joke. Weak sauce. The bigger point is Russia does likely have those 33,000 emails, as does the NSA, and Im sure they were about more than yoga and Chelseas wedding. Rather than bust balls about Trumps rather humorous joke, lets put Hillary in jail.
"There's no hard evidence.....There's supposition based on some facts but nothing conclusive" Finally in these sentences you actually stated something truthful.
You don't have an opposing point of view. You have FAKE NEWS.
Agreed the Russians are under surveillance as are our diplomats. There are laws though and when that surveillance continues into a sitting Senators office when he is conducting business in the course of his duties there are issues.
You are back on the "Maybe Russia has the 33.000 emails" joke. Weak sauce. The bigger point is Russia does likely have those 33,000 emails, as does the NSA, and Im sure they were about more than yoga and Chelseas wedding. Rather than bust balls about Trumps rather humorous joke, lets put Hillary in jail.
"There's no hard evidence.....There's supposition based on some facts but nothing conclusive" Finally in these sentences you actually stated something truthful.
You don't have an opposing point of view. You have FAKE NEWS.
Last edited:
Edit add.
"There's no hard evidence of wiretapping either".
See the video. There is Hillarys campaign manager stating the clandestine intel was conducted.
You can parse words and say "no wiretapping" because they used microwave technology or whatever but the fact is the Trump campaign and surrogates were spied on with no damning revelations made because we would have heard about them in order to either torpedo his campaign or his nascent presidency.
Hey Pint - jobs are up, illegal crossings are down, the wall is going to be built, taxes will be cut and there is going to be competition in health care, 8 more years think about that.
Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg has 8 years in her? Kagan doesn't look all that healthy, How about the wise Latina Im guessing thyroid issues. Think about that and enjoy.
"There's no hard evidence of wiretapping either".
See the video. There is Hillarys campaign manager stating the clandestine intel was conducted.
You can parse words and say "no wiretapping" because they used microwave technology or whatever but the fact is the Trump campaign and surrogates were spied on with no damning revelations made because we would have heard about them in order to either torpedo his campaign or his nascent presidency.
Hey Pint - jobs are up, illegal crossings are down, the wall is going to be built, taxes will be cut and there is going to be competition in health care, 8 more years think about that.
Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg has 8 years in her? Kagan doesn't look all that healthy, How about the wise Latina Im guessing thyroid issues. Think about that and enjoy.
The evidence of wiretapping is the wiretapped info released on Flynn. Some wiretapping happened that is evident. Who Why How is still a bit fuzzy. No matter how they got into Trump Tower? Once there, they should have known tapping a campaign was not well advised. Especially since no evidence of wrong doing was found.
BTW Is that you Hillary?
Thanks. You ain't so bad either. Must be the lack of Oxygen. The avatar was a pic from my time in the Hides dark site. They call it Ban Camp.
It was horrible.Similar threads
