Trump Tower Wiretapped?

[RoofGardener]

A minor thought... .DID the FBI know about the surveillance, or was it done by the rogue elements in the NSA ? (see logs passim).

[Lilly]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 8:14 AM, Lilly said:

As it's already been pointed out, a President doesn't order a wiretap, but that doesn't mean a cabinet official couldn't order it and the President would most certainly know all about it. Also, it appears that obtaining one of these FISA orders doesn't require a ton of evidence, just something that doesn't seem 'quite right'. And, as much as we'd like to think that all judges are totally objective and not influenced by politics this is simply not so.

As for who's in hot water here, that depends on what the actual evidence shows. If team Trump was not involved with the Russians to pull off anything questionable and it can be demonstrated that team Obama (on Clinton's behalf) was actually more interested in political spying (a la Watergate) then Obama needs to worry. If team Trump was in cahoots with the Russians to mess with the election and team Obama actually does have evidence of this then team Trump needs to worry. However, (and this is a big however) if team Obama has this strong irrefutable evidence and has had it since before the election it makes no sense that they wouldn't have dropped this bomb before the election took place. Also, if they obtained this evidence after the election why are they still dilly dallying now? I mean, why keep playing around, just bring out the evidence and nail Trump before he can even begin to govern.

Personally, I don't think team Obama has any strong evidence. As for the wiretapping, it really depends upon what was used as probable cause for getting that FISA order.

 

I think my comments here could invoke some further discussion (considering what we now know).

[Lilly]

6 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

A minor thought... .DID the FBI know about the surveillance, or was it done by the rogue elements in the NSA ? (see logs passim).

As of now we don't know...but I highly suspect some people quite high up in the FBI knew all about it (remember the Strzok email about the "meeting in Andy's office" and their little "insurance policy").

To be blunt here, I suspect some people quite high up in the political 'food chain' are probably scared 'poop-less' right about now.

[skliss]

And it has to be said...what did Obama know and when did he know it? He was out there leading the scoffers. 

[Why not]

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

As of now we don't know...but I highly suspect some people quite high up in the FBI knew all about it (remember the Strzok email about the "meeting in Andy's office" and their little "insurance policy").

To be blunt here, I suspect some people quite high up in the political 'food chain' are probably scared 'poop-less' right about now.

I told my wife the night of the election that there are a few people soiling their pants because Mrs. Clinton won't be there to cover their tracks. 

As more time passes and information revealed, there are more and more people not sleeping well at night now a days.

Things appear to be coming full circle.

[Lilly]

11 minutes ago, Why not said:

I told my wife the night of the election that there are a few people soiling their pants because Mrs. Clinton won't be there to cover their tracks. 

As more time passes and information revealed, there are more and more people not sleeping well at night now a days.

Things appear to be coming full circle.

This could very well be the case (we don't know for sure though). Once again, drag it all out into the light of day I say.

[Vorg]

See summary at end of all this.
"The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and US Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers," Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News.
The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrIke.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," a senior law enforcement official told CNN. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
This statement is in response to reports that the FBI never asked the DNC for access to the hacked systems.
“The security of our system is critical to our operation and to the confidence of the campaigns and state parties we work with,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), the DNC chairwoman. “When we discovered the intrusion, we treated this like the serious incident it is and reached out to CrowdStrike immediately. Our team moved as quickly as possible to kick out the intruders and secure our network.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html

"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."
When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."
When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

When WikiLeaks dropped its latest trove of documents on Tuesday — this time revealing CIA hacking operations — it highlighted an effort code-named “UMBRAGE.” A WikiLeaks tweet said, “CIA steals other groups virus and malware facilitating false flag attacks.” The group described how the program “collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques ‘stolen’ from malware produced in other states,” as a way to “misdirect attribution” of a break-in. Attribution was once the subject of spirited academic debate, yet figuring out who is behind a computer hack has never been as essential a topic as it is now.
The stakes here are high. If attribution were impossible, it would call into question the investigations into many major cyber incidents, including most prominently the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee. Some have suggested that this leak warns of the possibility of “CIA-created counter-espionage designed to implicate Trump” — in effect alleging that it wasn’t the Russians who hacked the DNC, but the CIA. At a time of tension between the intelligence community and the White House, and with ongoing investigations into illicit Russian influence on the 2016 election, the usually technical matter of attribution has acquired great political importance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-likely-hacked-the-dnc-and-new-wikileaks-revelations-strengthen-the-case/2017/03/09/e5fe55e8-04d6-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html?utm_term=.057e76341fe0

WASHINGTON — The C.I.A. told senior lawmakers in classified briefings last summer that it had information indicating that Russia was working to help elect Donald J. Trump president, a finding that did not emerge publicly until after Mr. Trump’s victory months later, former government officials say.
The briefings indicate that intelligence officials had evidence of Russia’s intentions to help Mr. Trump much earlier in the presidential campaign than previously thought. The briefings also reveal a critical split last summer between the C.I.A. and counterparts at the F.B.I., where a number of senior officials continued to believe through last fall that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed primarily at disrupting America’s political system, and not at getting Mr. Trump elected, according to interviews.
The briefings left Mr. Reid frustrated with the F.B.I.’s handling of Russia’s election intrusion, especially after the agency said in late October — 11 days before the election — that it was re-examining Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a “double standard” in reviving the Clinton investigation while sitting on “explosive information” about possible ties between Russia and Mr. Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html

The civilian (representative) oversight into the compartmented intelligence falls to a very select group known as the Intelligence Gang of Eight.
Four Democrats and Four Republicans (four minority party and four majority party political leaders) for a total of eight. Four from the House and Four from the Senate. –Understand the Gang of Eight Here– The Gang-of-Eight can, if they choose, interact with the intelligence product with the same level of security clearance as the compartment being reviewed.
Only these eight members can interact with the intelligence product in this way. This ensures their ability to conduct oversight.
Oversight protocol requires the FBI Director to tell the congressional intelligence “Gang of Eight” of any counterintelligence operations. The Go8 has oversight into these ops at the highest level of classification. In July 2016 the time the operation began, oversight was the responsibility of this group, the Gang of Eight: Ryan, Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, Nunes, Schiff, Burr, Feinstein.
FBI Director James Comey told congress on March 20th, 2017, the reason he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight” was because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.
Obviously, based on what we have learned since March 2017, and what has surfaced recently, we can all see why the FBI would want to keep it hidden that they were running a counterintelligence operation against a presidential candidate. After all, as FBI Agent Peter Strzok said it in his text messages, it was an “insurance policy”.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/05/operation-condor-how-nsa-director-mike-rogers-saved-the-u-s-from-a-massive-constitutional-crisis/

Summary: The DNC's computers were found to have been compromised. Instead of allowing the FBI to look at the data, they instead contacted a third party, Cloudstrike, to review the data. At that point, the data was compromised, and the FBI had no choice but to rely on Cloudstrikes data analysis. Wasserman Shcultz said Cloudstrike was immediately called, refuting DNC's Eric Walker statement and confirming the FBI's.

The CIA might have been the source of the hacks, to make Trump look as if he is colluding with the Russians. Around this time, U.S intelligence Agencies start feuding.

As the leaks start, Seth Rich is murdered. Julian Assagne who has been posting the leaks on Wikileaks, implies during an interview, that Seth Rich was the leaker, but would not confirm it, as he never reveals sources.

Julian Assagne also released alleged CIA hacking tools which U.S. intelligence officials and experts said details contained in the newly released documents suggest that they are legitimate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/wikileaks-says-it-has-obtained-trove-of-cia-hacking-tools/2017/03/07/c8c50c5c-0345-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.48a8fd61c917

Counteritelligence was being conducted (we have since found illegally) on Trump. FBI Director James Comey told congress he didn’t inform the statutory oversight “Gang of Eight”  because Bill Priestap (Director of Counterintelligence) recommended he didn’t do it.

It appears many intelligence agencies may have taken political sides last election and so the feuding began, with the leaks, unmasking, unprecedented actions, illegal spying  and every other tactic to bring Trump down. Now it's catching up to them.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by South Alabam

[Merc14]

On 1/12/2018 at 11:35 AM, Why not said:

I told my wife the night of the election that there are a few people soiling their pants because Mrs. Clinton won't be there to cover their tracks. 

As more time passes and information revealed, there are more and more people not sleeping well at night now a days.

Things appear to be coming full circle.

remember this email from Hillary to Donna Brazille after Matt Lauer dared question Queen Hillary:  10/17/2016  "If that f###ing  bas###d wins, we're all going to hang from nooses!!"   

She knew there was a LOT to cover up.   The funny thing is it is all coming to the surface because of the phony Russia collusion scam she started. 

Seriously though, we now know that after the Secret Service had set up a SCIF in Trump Tower, ADM Mike Rogers, head of the NSA, visited trump and briefed him on something and the Trump team suddenly moved their entire operation out of Trump Tower and he made that cryptic tweet about wiretaps.  I am guessing that Rogers told him you may want to establish your transition team elsewhere because you are being surveiled

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Merc14

[Farmer77]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 10:46 AM, Lilly said:

However, (and this is a big however) if team Obama has this strong irrefutable evidence and has had it since before the election it makes no sense that they wouldn't have dropped this bomb before the election took place.

I think it makes perfect sense. I don't envy Obama being in the position he was. You know how I feel about Trump and even I wouldn't have believed it if it had come out during the election. 

Not to mention the whole "POTUS is gonna declare martial law and refuse to step down" panic that happens every election , man had Obama looked like he was actively trying to sink Trump people would have lost their minds. 

 

 

[Lilly]

13 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I think it makes perfect sense. I don't envy Obama being in the position he was. You know how I feel about Trump and even I wouldn't have believed it if it had come out during the election. 

 

 

So, you're saying that if President Obama had solid verifiable evidence that Donald Trump was a criminal colluding with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 Presidential election that it "makes perfect sense" that Obama would do nothing? Really? If this is the case then President Obama is not only a criminal himself, but he's a traitor to the Democratic party and to the United States of America.

As much as I didn't care for President Obama's politics I do not think President Obama is a criminal and a traitor to the Republic. Also, without some very solid verifiable evidence I do not think President Trump is a criminal and a traitor to the Republic. In order for me to declare either of these US Presidents guilty of such a crime I'm going to need some verifiable rock solid evidence. 

What I do see evidence of is as follows: Both campaigns in the 2016 election were looking for any edge, this includes searching for dirt on the other candidate and schmoozing with anyone that might have anything on the other team (this includes Russians or any other nationality). Trump (a political novice) hired some businessmen that presented themselves as being experts in this arena (Manafort and Gates) these guys were not exactly 'clean as the new driven snow' Clinton and the DNC had it's share of 'not so squeaky clean' individuals as well (people who would shaft Mr Sanders and covertly hire others to buy opposition research from the Russians). This was a down and dirty election.

Fast forward to where we are now. Where is the proof that Trump committed criminal collusion (things far beyond what we saw both sides doing during the campaign)? Where is the solid verifiable evidence of Trump criminally colluding with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election? 

[Farmer77]

9 hours ago, Lilly said:

So, you're saying that if President Obama had solid verifiable evidence that Donald Trump was a criminal colluding with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 Presidential election that it "makes perfect sense" that Obama would do nothing? Really? If this is the case then President Obama is not only a criminal himself, but he's a traitor to the Democratic party and to the United States of America.

Obviously didn't "do nothing" as evidenced in the memo released today. I was more referring to if he were to go public with any of it before the investigation was completed. 

9 hours ago, Lilly said:

What I do see evidence of is as follows: Both campaigns in the 2016 election were looking for any edge, this includes searching for dirt on the other candidate and schmoozing with anyone that might have anything on the other team (this includes Russians or any other nationality). Trump (a political novice) hired some businessmen that presented themselves as being experts in this arena (Manafort and Gates) these guys were not exactly 'clean as the new driven snow' Clinton and the DNC had it's share of 'not so squeaky clean' individuals as well (people who would shaft Mr Sanders and covertly hire others to buy  opposition research from the Russians). This was a down and dirty election.

 So Trump's a victim, but its OK because the other side was dirty too.........gotta love what has happened to the "moral majority". 

9 hours ago, Lilly said:

Fast forward to where we are now. Where is the proof that Trump committed criminal collusion (things far beyond what we saw both sides doing during the campaign)? Where is the solid verifiable evidence of Trump criminally colluding with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election?

If it exists it is being carefully guarded by the investigators , as it should. 

You don't really believe otherwise do you? 

[Lilly]

No one should be tossing others under the bus based on less than definitive evidence...plus without proof of a crime it would lead nowhere. I never said anyone was a "victim" but rather that during a down and dirty political campaign both sides were looking for opposition research (aka, dirt) on their political rival. This is just the reality of the situation.  

So, the verifiable, definitive evidence (aka, proof) of Trump criminally colluding with the Kremlin is "being carefully guarded by the investigators"? Really, then why diddle around with likes of Manafort/Gates/Flynn at all? If Mueller had such evidence Trump would be immediately summarily indicted faster than snow melts in Hades. <That is what I believe (hands down no less). 

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

So, the verifiable, definitive evidence (aka, proof) of Trump criminally colluding with the Kremlin is "being carefully guarded by the investigators"? Really, then why diddle around with likes of Manafort/Gates/Flynn at all? 

Well a couple of reasons.

It could be that it doesn't exist at all, ill gladly concede that, I just don't think the lack of it appearing in the public means it doesn't exist 

It could be that , as many professional prosecutors are claiming, Mueller is simply adding on to whatever evidence he has ensuring A. that it is correct and B. that it will be a slam dunk no doubt conviction for Mueller. National security is worth that.

5 minutes ago, Lilly said:

If Mueller had such evidence Trump would be immediately summarily indicted faster than snow melts in Hades. <That is what I believe (hands down no less). 

That's just not how investigations into criminal enterprises work though. 

[Lilly]

Then show me the money. When I see the evidence that Trump criminally colluded with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election then I'll be more than glad to 'push him under the bus' (impeach and boot him out of office). Until then, Trump is the POTUS and I will respect the office. 

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Then show me the money. When I see the evidence that Trump criminally colluded with the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election then I'll be more than glad to 'push him under the bus' (impeach and boot him out of office). Until then, Trump is the POTUS and I will respect the office. 

Sure wish the POTUS would