Trump Tower Wiretapped?

[Paranormal Panther]

9 hours ago, Lilly said:

Naturally, but like they used to say when I was a kid, "the jig is up" if it can't be proven (via some actual evidence) that a Trump/Russia collusion threw the election. If it comes out that Ms Rice and others high up in the prior administration were abusing power to spy on their political opposition it's not going to look good.  One can only put a spin on things so far before the tide of public opinion begins to turn. Now, if there actually is proof that a Trump/Russia collusion threw the election then I don't think the unmasking (legal or not) will matter much at all.

IMO this all hinges on if the Trump/Russia collusion is real or just a political construct designed to attack the Trump administration.

I don't share your optimism. I'm almost certain that the claims, about Russia, are a charade and a facade. They would have shouted from the rooftops if there was any definitive proof. It seems like it's just a tool to bludgeon Trump, and it's doubtful that there will be any smoking guns. There's also the fact that Russia meddles with us in all kinds of ways, and this includes the political sphere. This time, if the charge is true, is seized upon by Trump's opposition to cast constant doubt upon him and his actions. It's a diabolical scheme to hurt his administration, one that was concocted by desperate fanatics. It's also one that's designed to trick naive people.

[ChrLzs]

34 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your fifth point of contact.

Trump did business in Russia. So did Ford, Boeing, Pfizer, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, GM, GE, Proctor & Gamble, McDonald's...

And if ANY of those folks did the wrong thing, they should have been prosecuted..  don't you think?  So why didn't those others get prosecuted - could it possibly be that there was no evidence?  Or that heaven forbid, they didn't do anything wrong or illegal?  If that applies here, then Mr T has nothing to worry about.  Just as an aside though, tell me, MstrMsn, has Trump done illegal stuff in the past?  Would you like some examples?

Quote

 all of them must be guilty of collusion - according to you.

??? That's not what I read. Where did he specifically say that?

Quote

If a lawyer brought this type of circumstantial evidence to court, all he/she will be able to prove with it is that (lawful) business between Trump and Russia happened. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove a crime - even if you word it however you want to attempt to show a connection, you will be unable to prove one.

Well, gee golly gosh, maybe that's why it has not YET been brought to court, and won't be until further investigation...  And if wrongdoing has been done, Trump should be prosecuted, right?  If it hasn't, he won't - in fact it likely won't get to court.  Gee, just like them other examples you gave above - why didn't they go to court?  Maybe because they didn't involve wrongdoing or there was no evidence...  It's not really that difficult to understand - as everyone here knows (except you?), circumstantial evidence is just part of a case.  Obviously it is admissible if a case goes ahead, and if it helps to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then so be it...

Thing is, up until an investigation is completed, you can whine all you like, but are you seriously suggesting circumstantial evidence should be ignored and investigation should stop?  Simply on the basis of "Well look at those folks, they never got prosecuted?"  (Yes, I can play 'according to you' games too..)

As if going this far offtopic wasn't bad enough..  this thread is a trainwreck.

Oh and BTW, any chance you guys/gals, instead of casting derision on each other's links and NOT actually quoting specific content and debating it.... umm... how about dropping the ad-hominem / poison-the-well approaches and (duh) .. quote the specific content and debate what is untrue/true.

Maybe it's just me who is sick of hearing this right-biased/left-biased accusation over and over and over and over.  It seems to be a substitute for debate...

Anyways, you needn't tell me - I'll go!  I'll drop back when something actually happens.

 

Something ONtopic.

Edited April 6, 2017 by ChrLzs

[MstrMsn]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

And if ANY of those folks did the wrong thing, they should have been prosecuted..  don't you think?  So why didn't those others get prosecuted - could it possibly be that there was no evidence?  Or that heaven forbid, they didn't do anything wrong or illegal?  If that applies here, then Mr T has nothing to worry about.  Just as an aside though, tell me, MstrMsn, has Trump done illegal stuff in the past?  Would you like some examples?

??? That's not what I read. Where did he specifically say that?

Well, gee golly gosh, maybe that's why it has not YET been brought to court, and won't be until further investigation...  And if wrongdoing has been done, Trump should be prosecuted, right?  If it hasn't, he won't - in fact it likely won't get to court.  Gee, just like them other examples you gave above - why didn't they go to court?  Maybe because they didn't involve wrongdoing or there was no evidence...  It's not really that difficult to understand - as everyone here knows (except you?), circumstantial evidence is just part of a case.  Obviously it is admissible if a case goes ahead, and if it helps to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, then so be it...

Thing is, up until an investigation is completed, you can whine all you like, but are you seriously suggesting circumstantial evidence should be ignored and investigation should stop?  Simply on the basis of "Well look at those folks, they never got prosecuted?"  (Yes, I can play 'according to you' games too..)

As if going this far offtopic wasn't bad enough..  this thread is a trainwreck.

Oh and BTW, any chance you guys/gals, instead of casting derision on each other's links and NOT actually quoting specific content and debating it.... umm... how about dropping the ad-hominem / poison-the-well approaches and (duh) .. quote the specific content and debate what is untrue/true.

Maybe it's just me who is sick of hearing this right-biased/left-biased accusation over and over and over and over.  It seems to be a substitute for debate...

Anyways, you needn't tell me - I'll go!  I'll drop back when something actually happens.

 

Something ONtopic.

Thanks for your imput, though it isn't needed. You took my reply to another poster out of context, and rambled a bunch of meaningless drivel. 

Of course, you completely missed my point, and obviously hadn't read through all the other posts (this is my opinion based on your comment, because you ignored pretty much everything).

Please, feel free to comment, or not comment. But, if you do comment, actually address the points and not wild speculation. 

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, Einsteinium said:

What if Trump's team really did collude with Russia? Shouldn't we investigate that? If he did, that is Treason, and people could literally be hung for that still. That is serious news, and EVERY stone should be upturned as the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Either they colluded, or Russia wanted to make it look as though they colluded.

Is it really treason, or is it something else. Doesn't treason have to be against the nation, or it's government. If Trump DID collude with Russia, against the Clinton campaign, then isn't that against a civilian running for office, and not against the actual government? 

IF there was collusion, then I'd agree it could be some kind of crime, but I doubt treason.

Edited April 7, 2017 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

16 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

So they say.  If they have evidence of collusion, they should have had enough time to confirm it by now, especially if they have the communications.  Let’s see it (and in context)!  Someone had no problems leaking names, let’s see substance now.

I think I've cracked the case.....

Maybe I should send this to the NYT??

 

OFFICIAL…. Partially redacted sample of NSA Russian phone tap, November 11th 2016 (not really.)

Russian official: Hello this is Sergai, Department of Foreign Relations…

Trump aid: Hi, this is General Unmasked of the Trump campaign for President of the US.

Russian official: What can I do for you?

Trump aid: Well, since we’re going to be working together very soon, I just wanted to call and get to know you some.

Russian official: *******************Putin***********************************************************************************************************************

Trump aid: *****************fix**************************************election********************************************************************************

Russian official: ************************money*************************election******************************************************************************************

Trump aid: ******************hack*************************************************************************************************************************

Russian official: *********************************************hack*********************************************email*************************************************

Trump aid: *************************Clinton******************corrupt***********************************idiot*************************************************************

Russian official: *********************yes*****************************fix**************************November***************************************************************

Trump aid: ****************************Trump**************************************fix*************************************************************************

Russian official: ************************************election********************************sanction***********************************************************************

Trump aid: *******************************************************************************************************************************************

Russian official: *************************************Trump******************************************************************************************************

Trump aid: *******************************************************************************************************************************************

Russian official: *******************************************************************************************************************************************

Trump aid: *******************************************************************************************************************************************

Russian official: ************************************winning*******************************************************************************************************

[Yamato]

Now that Trump's begging for WW3 with Russia over a sob story professionally hand-sobbed by every mainstream media pundit on the tube....

I doubt the NYT even cares anymore.   He's all fixed now!  

[Einsteinium]

1 hour ago, Yamato said:

Now that Trump's begging for WW3 with Russia over a sob story professionally hand-sobbed by every mainstream media pundit on the tube....

I doubt the NYT even cares anymore.   He's all fixed now!  

I have said it before and I will say it again, Trump is going to be a disaster for the world, he will use military force without thinking through all the implications of doing so, and drag us into a large scale war without even realizing it until it is too late.

Obama, for all his failings, at least put a lot of thought and time into his decisions and considered all of the possible outcomes before taking an action. Trump will react swiftly, in a knee jerk way, without thinking it through, and that is DANGEROUS for all of us.

[Einsteinium]

7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Is it really treason, or is it something else. Doesn't treason have to be against the nation, or it's government. If Trump DID collude with Russia, against the Clinton campaign, then isn't that against a civilian running for office, and not against the actual government? 

IF there was collusion, then I'd agree it could be some kind of crime, but I doubt treason.

 

You are probably right, Treason is defined as the act of betraying one's country. You could try and spin it as Treason, but probably some lesser crime would be more appropriate if they did in fact collude.

[Einsteinium]

17 hours ago, MstrMsn said:

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on your fifth point of contact.

Trump did business in Russia. So did Ford, Boeing, Pfizer, PepsiCo, Johnson & Johnson, GM, GE, Proctor & Gamble, McDonald's... all of them must be guilty of collusion - according to you.

If a lawyer brought this type of circumstantial evidence to court, all he/she will be able to prove with it is that (lawful) business between Trump and Russia happened. You need more than circumstantial evidence to prove a crime - even if you word it however you want to attempt to show a connection, you will be unable to prove one. 

Again, your understanding of what circumstantial evidence means is non existent. In criminal matters you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and you just can not do that without direct evidence.

What will it take for YOU to admit you know nothing about reality, and finally stop listening to progressive propaganda? 

Thank God the FBI does not agree with you and agree's with me that there is circumstantial evidence, and it sounds like they might have more than circumstantial evidence now.

If the FBI just ignored this and did not investigate that would be a terrible thing and a dereliction of duty on their part.

[skliss]

Obama did what Valerie Jarrett told him to, nothing more, nothing less.

[ChrLzs]

On 07/04/2017 at 10:05 AM, MstrMsn said:

Thanks for your imput, though it isn't needed. You took my reply to another poster out of context, and rambled a bunch of meaningless drivel. 

Of course, you completely missed my point, and obviously hadn't read through all the other posts (this is my opinion based on your comment, because you ignored pretty much everything).

Please, feel free to comment, or not comment. But, if you do comment, actually address the points and not wild speculation. 

I notice YOU didn't actually cite my allegedly incorrect or irrelevant points.  Here's a link...  and check that thread title again, would you..?

[Yamato]

On 4/6/2017 at 3:35 PM, Merc14 said:

That is not evidence of Russia hacking the election, it is Trump doing a lot of business with Russia. 

Doing business with Russia suddenly doesn't look too promising so the most recent alleged reason for the investigation could be over.  Looks like Saudi Arabia is his big biz partner now.   Not just shameless!   Sharia Shameless!

Though I wouldn't be surprised if Rex goes to Russia and says:  "Oh, that?  That was just for show.  You know how it is...if Americans don't see their govt treating other countries the way they don't want to be treated they get nervous."

[Claire.]

FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page

The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.

Read more: The Washington Post

[+DieChecker]

On 4/11/2017 at 5:52 PM, Claire. said:

FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page

The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.

Read more: The Washington Post

Yeah, I was reading about that. Doubtless we'll hear some doublespeak today on how that didn't really happen, or how it was harmless and not actually what it appears to be.

[Merc14]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 8:52 PM, Claire. said:

FBI obtained FISA warrant to monitor former Trump adviser Carter Page

The FBI obtained a secret court order last summer to monitor the communications of an adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump, part of an investigation into possible links between Russia and the campaign, law enforcement and other U.S. officials said.

Read more: The Washington Post

This is so much BS!!!!   There was nothing there, nothing, Obama just wanted to use the intelligence services to spy on political adversaries just like he used the IRS to cripple republican PAC 501c's

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 4/13/2017 at 10:48 AM, Merc14 said:

This is so much BS!!!!   There was nothing there, nothing, Obama just wanted to use the intelligence services to spy on political adversaries just like he used the IRS to cripple republican PAC 501c's

Is there evidence that Obama, apparently by doing something underhanded with the judge who approved the warrant, somehow 'used' not just the intelligence services but the courts to spy on Page?

[Merc14]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Is there evidence that Obama, apparently by doing something underhanded with the judge who approved the warrant, somehow 'used' not just the intelligence services but the courts to spy on Page?

You don't use our foreign intelligence services to spy on American citizens.  If the foreigner you are spying on is communicating with an American citizen then you are supposed to mask the identity of that individual unless their identification is pertinent to the case.   From what I have heard from past intelligence people it is very rare that a US citizen would be unmasked and usually the unmasking would be done by an analyst and provided to the NSA chairman. 

Rarely if ever does the NSA Chairman ask that an individual be unmasked because they are NOT analysts, they are consumers of intel that has been analyzed previously.  Susan Rice, however, requested several unmaskings, all members of Trump's campaign, be unmasked.  The important point here is that the intel she was using had already been analyzed by a professional and that professional saw no reason to unmask an American citizen so why did the political advisor of Barry Obama need to know that person's name?

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

 The important point here is that the intel she was using had already been analyzed by a professional and that professional saw no reason to unmask an American citizen so why did the political advisor of Barry Obama need to know that person's name?

Then I misunderstood your post.  The article that you responded to as nothing BS is about the FBI getting FISA warrants on Page, something you get through the courts not through Obama.  If you were just complaining about unmasking that's a different issue, but from one perspective there is reason to believe there was 'something' there since quite a bit more than just 'something' is required to get the warrant from the FISA court.

[Merc14]

Friday Senator Rand Paul stated he has formally requested information from the White House and Intelligence Committee if the Obama Admin. ever surveilled him.

Via Twitter: “I have formally requested from the WH and the Intel Committees info on whether I was surveilled by Obama admin and or the Intel community!”

 

 Follow

Senator Rand Paul 

 

✔@RandPaul

I have formally requested from the WH and the Intel Committees info on whether I was surveilled by Obama admin and or the Intel community!

He also asked:“Did the Obama admin go after presidential candidates, members of Congress, journalists, clergy, lawyers, fed judges?”

In another tweet: “Did the Obama admin use warrantless ‘wiretapping’ on other candidates besides @realDonaldTrump?”

 

Looks like the democrat plan to implicate Trump colluding with Russia is blowing up in the DNC's face.  

Since then it’s been revealed Loretta Lynch, Obama’s AG, signed off on all the wiretapping applications:

According to ABC News:

More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general,are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved. From 2009 to 2015, for example, more than 10,700 applications for electronic surveillance were submitted, and only one was denied in its entirety, according to annual reports sent to Congress. Another one was denied in part, and 17 were withdrawn by the government.

According to ABC, all applications to the FISA Court were signed off on by the Attorney General and therefore if any applications were processed in the past year, they were signed off on by Loretta Lynch.  This means that Lynch signed off on any requests for wire tapping President Donald Trump during the Presidential race.   This is disheartening knowing that she released a video over the weekend calling for the need for more marching, blood and death on the streets.

Edited May 6, 2017 by Merc14

[Yamato]

So... 10,681/10,700 wiretapping applications were approved.   With a 99.82% approval rate, why not?   I guess like how lawmakers are conveniently excluded from the health care pile they're jerry rigging up for the rest of us, they also think they're immune to wiretaps too?  

If Loretta Lynch signed off on a Rand Paul wiretap, is it warranted?   If she didn't, and it happened anyway, is that legally defined as unwarranted?   Is it just procedure that's so sanctimonious and vital?

If Loretta Lynch signed off on all the wiretap applications how can Loretta Lynch (ergo Jeff Sessions) get wiretapped?    Wiretap them all.   Release their emails too.   They're public figures they should be subjected to the scrutiny of the public not get pampered with double standards on privacy.

[Unusual Tournament]

On 08/04/2017 at 1:37 AM, Einsteinium said:

I have said it before and I will say it again, Trump is going to be a disaster for the world, he will use military force without thinking through all the implications of doing so, and drag us into a large scale war without even realizing it until it is too late.

Obama, for all his failings, at least put a lot of thought and time into his decisions and considered all of the possible outcomes before taking an action. Trump will react swiftly, in a knee jerk way, without thinking it through, and that is DANGEROUS for all of us.

Well Trump has elected awful people to key posts. Mattis and Tillerson keep getting contradicted by Trump and both should have already spoken up or resigned by now. Obama was good at choosing good people and at delegating. His presidency was seemless. 

[+DieChecker]

So... there is evidence of data being collected and correlated regarding Trump aids, right? Hard Evidence....

And... there is still zero evidence of Trump, or aids, collusion with Russia to fix the election in Trump's favor?

To me this is:

Trump = +1

Tru-russian (Trump+Russian) Conspiracy Theorists = 0

[+DieChecker]

3 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Well Trump has elected awful people to key posts. Mattis and Tillerson keep getting contradicted by Trump and both should have already spoken up or resigned by now. Obama was good at choosing good people and at delegating. His presidency was seemless. 

The Republicans also didn't try to stop every single nomination that Obama put forward. Trying to find ANYTHING that they can to discredit every single nomination. Obstructionism has never been at this level before, not even at its worst under Obama. It is childish, and they should stop. If the nominees are so terrible, then they will fail and case the GOP to go down with them. 

[Unusual Tournament]

11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

The Republicans also didn't try to stop every single nomination that Obama put forward. Trying to find ANYTHING that they can to discredit every single nomination. Obstructionism has never been at this level before, not even at its worst under Obama. It is childish, and they should stop. If the nominees are so terrible, then they will fail and case the GOP to go down with them. 

No they didn't cause Obama, foreign policy wise, didn't do anything that even Reagan, Bush Sr or Jr wouldn't have done themselves. Obama might not have been part of the establishment but he certainly became one of the boys, r e a l fast. Obstructionism IMO goes beyond party lines these days and seems to resemble more and more the deep state. Trump is not one of the boys and it shows in his nominations. Tillerson looks uncomfortable and awkward in his role, almost like he's doing Trump a favour and Mattis looks like he's seen better days. As for Pence... well enough said. When you view everyone as an enemy (wrong or right) it limits how much of the talent pool you can tap into. 

I don't think its just the democrat's that are shutting Trump down but also members of his own party. 

[+DieChecker]

32 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

No they didn't cause Obama, foreign policy wise, didn't do anything that even Reagan, Bush Sr or Jr wouldn't have done themselves. Obama might not have been part of the establishment but he certainly became one of the boys, r e a l fast. Obstructionism IMO goes beyond party lines these days and seems to resemble more and more the deep state. Trump is not one of the boys and it shows in his nominations. Tillerson looks uncomfortable and awkward in his role, almost like he's doing Trump a favour and Mattis looks like he's seen better days. As for Pence... well enough said. When you view everyone as an enemy (wrong or right) it limits how much of the talent pool you can tap into. 

I don't think its just the democrat's that are shutting Trump down but also members of his own party. 

I WAS amazed that the "Repeal Obamacare" vote passed yesterday. I thought it would fold again like last time. It could be that Trump is getting all the Republicans to line up now. ?? Maybe?