Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lilly

Trump Tower Wiretapped?

2,038 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yamato
34 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

I would expect you to buy into that.  Sort of like that interview from Tina Fey when she was commenting that those college grad white women need to go back to HGTV as if they are now sorry for voting for Trump.  Sorry to inform you but the hysteria of the Left is just that.  Those that support Trump know that it is going to take more than a few months to realize.  For those that have lived long enough remember a promise and somehow, the people forgot it.  It faded after Martin Luther.  Then the people were forgotten.  It was a feeling that I thought was gone forever.  We have been waiting a long time.  We were “Next Year’s People” – “Next year in Jerusalem”.  A glimpse of that promise reemerged when Trump entered the race but it wasn’t totally clear yet.  But it seems now that the more pushback that Trump is running into, victory will ultimately be sweeter.  Trump thrives on opposition.  The Left hasn’t figured that out yet.  I’m feeling very reflective this morning and I think I will answer you and your ilk with the following story.  And it makes more sense than your usual gibberish.  It is a bit Bohemian.  The visions are returning, the light and hope are returning to the world.  Watch us soar now!  Many selections could probably fit, but these three just popped up so I will use them.  You won’t understand it but don’t feel bad, this is for me and not you.

I'm happy you're happy, but I'm still pretty sure "the Left" never strongly approved of Donald Trump.  :rolleyes:

The media doesn't suck because it's "the Left" (i.e. not "the Right"), it sucks because it serves the interests of the corporate owners no matter how much "Left" and "Right" is baked into or out of it. 

Left and right is incidental; unlike you it means nothing to me.  The Real Owners control a bipartisan collection of centrist authoritarians squabbling over the drips and driblets chosen for us to argue about while ignoring the forest through the trees.   Sorry but your ideological arguments boil down to paper or plastic, coke or pepsi.   Maybe someday you'll learn how to count the money instead of listening to the rhetoric.   Of course, whatever worst PC example of behavior you can find next, put it in the bag called "the Left" and hand it to me like I'm going to buy it?   Why waste your time?  Whatever dirt you dig up next doesn't influence the way I think or the conclusions I draw.   Sometimes it probably belongs in "the Left"'s bag and that's not a reason to buy it either.   I know..."Gibberish!"

Yes you always wanted a violent authoritarian state to execute your violent authoritarian ideology, it's little wonder you're happy.   Just call it an Empire and the President is the Master and there's no end to what adventures you'll have! 

The soaring visions of light and hope?   Are you stealing Manfred's jokes or are you actually serious?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormal Panther
20 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Shouldn't all the Executive Orders that Trump then signed, be headlined as.... Trump Does His Job!!! 

The Lefty excuse makers keep cracking me up.

Don't hold your breath. Trump will get all of the blame and none of the credit. The facts won't matter. The MSM won't deviate from their agenda.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 4/4/2017 at 7:27 PM, Merc14 said:

Why? If you read the transcripts and there is no crime being committed then why in the hell unmask the names of people in a campaign for the presidency?  If there was a crime being committed then it is most definitely NOT the NSA's job, or Susan Rice's, to pursue it, that is the job of the FBI.  Obviously she didn't call the FBI or did she?

She has lied before to push Obama's career when she went on the Sunday morning shows and told us all that Benghazi was about a video, that Al Qaeda was gone just like her boss Obama was claiming as his one foreign policy success in his campaign for reelection.  

So we have a proven liar doing something she should not have been doing and we are supposed to buy her story?

Did you read what I wrote. She has every right due to her office to know who a Russian suspect is speaking to. What she does not have the right to do is target (go fishing) for specific people, and then pass on the data about those unmasked people. If the people she unmasked turned out to be important, and repeat offenders, then she probably should have passed on her suspicions to the FBI, if it turns out she passed names around, then yeah, she's going to be in hot water.

The fact she lied in the past does not automatically make her a liar. It does put doubt on her testimony however. Such that she should have been removed, or at least monitored by someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Did you read what I wrote. She has every right due to her office to know who a Russian suspect is speaking to. What she does not have the right to do is target (go fishing) for specific people, and then pass on the data about those unmasked people. If the people she unmasked turned out to be important, and repeat offenders, then she probably should have passed on her suspicions to the FBI, if it turns out she passed names around, then yeah, she's going to be in hot water.

The fact she lied in the past does not automatically make her a liar. It does put doubt on her testimony however. Such that she should have been removed, or at least monitored by someone.

It's not a right due to her office, she actually does have to have cause to unmask a US citizen. 

Intel analysts can tell from the conversation if there is anything that would warrant the unmasking. Just because the Russian ambassador is chatting with General Motors, doesn't mean the the National Security Advisor has a need to know what General Motors real name is. She overstepped her authority on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

It's not a right due to her office, she actually does have to have cause to unmask a US citizen. 

True, but considering she was at the point of the pyramid, I expect it didn't take much "cause" for her to get her way.

Quote

Intel analysts can tell from the conversation if there is anything that would warrant the unmasking. Just because the Russian ambassador is chatting with General Motors, doesn't mean the the National Security Advisor has a need to know what General Motors real name is. She overstepped her authority on this one.

I heard that NSA was looking into what her unmasking requests were and why she wanted those requests. Hopefully we'll hear what's what later this week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
Just now, DieChecker said:

True, but considering she was at the point of the pyramid, I expect it didn't take much "cause" for her to get her way.

I heard that NSA was looking into what her unmasking requests were and why she wanted those requests. Hopefully we'll hear what's what later this week.

But, she's (well, the NS Advisor) isn't the point of any pyramid. The President chairs the National Security Council, the National Security Advisor, VP, the Secretaries of Defense, State and Treasury are on the council. 

The Directors of the various intel agencies report to the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President and advises the NCS, DHS and what not. 

Let's put it this way, to even be able to read or be told about the contents of any intel, you first need to have a security clearance - typically top secret or better. Even if you have the highest level of clearance, you are still required to show a "need to know".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
14 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Don't hold your breath. Trump will get all of the blame and none of the credit. The facts won't matter. The MSM won't deviate from their agenda.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Did you read what I wrote. She has every right due to her office to know who a Russian suspect is speaking to. What she does not have the right to do is target (go fishing) for specific people, and then pass on the data about those unmasked people. If the people she unmasked turned out to be important, and repeat offenders, then she probably should have passed on her suspicions to the FBI, if it turns out she passed names around, then yeah, she's going to be in hot water.

The fact she lied in the past does not automatically make her a liar. It does put doubt on her testimony however. Such that she should have been removed, or at least monitored by someone.

If you listen to what past National Security Advisors have said what she did was highly unusual and after she had done it a couple of times, obviously purely political.  The National Security Advisor is NOT an investigator nor do they develop intelligence, they are consumers of it.  I'll give you one unmasking maybe even two but multiple unmaskings of Obama's number one political foe's team?  Please! 

As for lying, she lied on the biggest stage, to the American people, on multiple occasions about the murder of our ambassador and was complicit in jailing a man for several months for no reason other than to protect Obama's fake legacy that Al Qaeda was on the run.  She looked right at the camera and in her most sincere voice said it was a riot caused by a YouTube video.  If you trust that person then it is a you problem.  You know what her other claim to fame is?  She was the big voice in the room when Sudan offered Clinton Obama, dead or alive.  Yep, that was Ms. Rice saying we didn't have enough legal standing to accept custody of  the man. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
35 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

If you listen to what past National Security Advisors have said what she did was highly unusual and after she had done it a couple of times, obviously purely political.  The National Security Advisor is NOT an investigator nor do they develop intelligence, they are consumers of it.  I'll give you one unmasking maybe even two but multiple unmaskings of Obama's number one political foe's team?  Please! 

I hadn't heard that yet. I'll read up, but I agree it is becoming more clear that she's somehow at the bottom of a lot of what's been collected and distributed.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
13 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I hadn't heard that yet. I'll read up, but I agree it is becoming more clear that she's somehow at the bottom of a lot of what's been collected and distributed.

Something really isn't 'quite right' with all this. I'm still convinced it all ties into the inception of the Trump/Russia collusion scenario. IMO It will all hinge on whether team Trump really did collude with Russia to throw the election, or if this was just a political construct designed to discredit Trump.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
2 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Something really isn't 'quite right' with all this. I'm still convinced it all ties into the inception of the Trump/Russia collusion scenario. IMO It will all hinge on whether team Trump really did collude with Russia to throw the election, or if this was just a political construct designed to discredit Trump.   

If there was any actual evidence that Trump and Russia were involved in stealing the election, impeachment proceedings would have already started.

But, my question is, how is it possible? She won the popular vote (unless people are saying that she would have had a higher popular vote, which is only wishful thinking). Did Trump/Russia steal the electoral vote? How? If not, then how did they steal the election?  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I really feel the whole Russia collusion thing is of the Birther level of reality.

I'll have to think of a good name to call the Russia/Collusion believers... Rusllusionists?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Just now, MstrMsn said:

If there was any actual evidence that Trump and Russia were involved in stealing the election, impeachment proceedings would have already started.

But, my question is, how is it possible? She won the popular vote (unless people are saying that she would have had a higher popular vote, which is only wishful thinking). Did Trump/Russia steal the electoral vote? How? If not, then how did they steal the election?  

 

It is sad when people can't understand how Clinton lost. Even her own people told us how it happened two or three days after the election. She didn't spend enough time/effort/money on key states, and spent too much time/effort/money on the Coast states she'd already basically won. It is as simple as that.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
Just now, MstrMsn said:

If there was any actual evidence that Trump and Russia were involved in stealing the election, impeachment proceedings would have already started.

But, my question is, how is it possible? She won the popular vote (unless people are saying that she would have had a higher popular vote, which is only wishful thinking). Did Trump/Russia steal the electoral vote? How? If not, then how did they steal the election?  

 

Hey, I hear ya (I feel much the same). I think if there was evidence of Trump/Russia collusion it would have been brought forth before the election or at least before Trump was sworn in. As to how Trump and Russia could 'steal' the election...I have no idea. The onus is on those who say this happened to demonstrate (via actual evidence) how this took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

It is sad when people can't understand how Clinton lost. Even her own people told us how it happened two or three days after the election. She didn't spend enough time/effort/money on key states, and spent too much time/effort/money on the Coast states she'd already basically won. It is as simple as that.

Exactly, Mrs Clinton did not campaign to garner the needed Electoral Votes...so she lost. Basically, the Democratic vision did not appeal to the 'fly over' states.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It is sad when people can't understand how Clinton lost. Even her own people told us how it happened two or three days after the election. She didn't spend enough time/effort/money on key states, and spent too much time/effort/money on the Coast states she'd already basically won. It is as simple as that.

Oh, I know. Just trying to understand the lunacy of those claiming Russia and Trump stole the election.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly
3 minutes ago, MstrMsn said:

Oh, I know. Just trying to understand the lunacy of those claiming Russia and Trump stole the election.

I hope you have a heller lot of Tylenol for the headache you'll get that trying to understand that (just my opinion).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
18 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I really feel the whole Russia collusion thing is of the Birther level of reality.

I'll have to think of a good name to call the Russia/Collusion believers... Rusllusionists?

Try “Desperation gate”.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
18 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

It is sad when people can't understand how Clinton lost. Even her own people told us how it happened two or three days after the election. She didn't spend enough time/effort/money on key states, and spent too much time/effort/money on the Coast states she'd already basically won. It is as simple as that.

This is why they are pushing the collusion with Russia.  It’s because of domestic collusion with the DNC that they thought the fix was in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

It may have well been in Rice’s power to unmask names but that that was only within the 17 agencies.  Somewhere along the line, Flynn’s name was leaked.  That is a Felony.  That the name was leaked is the evidence.  That there is still no evidence of collusion raises doubts of there being anything at all.  Show us the money!
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MstrMsn
41 minutes ago, Lilly said:

I hope you have a heller lot of Tylenol for the headache you'll get that trying to understand that (just my opinion).

I drink large amounts of coffee... :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

This is why they are pushing the collusion with Russia.  It’s because of domestic collusion with the DNC that they thought the fix was in.

 

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

A story that is slipping under everyones radar is the fact that the firm that initially fingered the Russians as the hackers who stole Podesta's emails is now backing away from their analysis and refusing to testify in front of congress.  What most don't know is that the FBI never looked at the DNC servers that were hacked because the DNC refused them access!  Instead, the DNC hired a cybersecurity firm named Crowdstrike, closely affiliated wit the DNC, to investigate the hack of Podesta's email account and the FBI used this report to conclude Russian hacking.  

The problem with that is they identified Russia as te hacker by the Trojan that was used and that Trojan, once released long ago, had been cloned and used by many other hackers over the years.  The author of the original Trojan laughed at Crowdstrike's findings.   Another security firm hat analyzed Crowdstrike's findings state that while the hackers may have ben Russian there was zero proof they were government connected.

To make matters worse, Crowdstrike is very anti-Russia and has fingered Russia for hacks before, most importantly when they announced that the Rusians had crippled 80% of the Ukraine's howitzers by hacking an app.  This was later proved false and also found to be based on a Russian' bloggers posts.  Crowdstrike quietly retracted that report but only after the democrats crowed about it.

Now Crowdstrike is retracting their report on the DNC hack and is refusing to testify before congress.  Unfortunately for congress and the FBI Crowdstrike is the only forensic evidence available for this hack.  Even worse, Crowdstrike is very closely affiliated with the DNC and may have reported what they wanted to be true rather than what they had really found.   So what we have is a hack on DNC servers that may have been committed by anyone with basic hacking skills and, literally, no evidence of any kind that the Russian government was involved!

Why the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers, despite the FBI's warning that this was not recommended and that without access they couldn't determine anything, is the big question.  Were they hiding the fact that the Russians didn't really hack the servers or was there criminal activity on the servers the DNC didn't want law enforcement  to see?  Pure speculation at this point but any evidence is assuredly gone now so too late to go back and reinvestigate. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4376628/New-questions-claim-Russia-hacked-election.html

Some of my info is from other sources but The Dailymail is the first mainstream source to acknowledge what is going on with Crowdstrike.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute 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.

If he did, why hasn’t that investigation already happened?  Why wasn’t it initiated before the inauguration?  At least a leak of the information or the content of the communications?  Saying that Trump’s transition team members were talking with Russian officials is not proof or evidence of collusion.  They were doing what they were supposed to do.  So let’s see some real evidence.  The only real evidence we have is that of felonies committed, perhaps by Farkas and Rice??  Let’s get to the bottom of all of this.  I will not be surprised when this expands to others, even Graham and McCain.  This is going to drain the swamp.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium
4 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

A story that is slipping under everyones radar is the fact that the firm that initially fingered the Russians as the hackers who stole Podesta's emails is now backing away from their analysis and refusing to testify in front of congress.  What most don't know is that the FBI never looked at the DNC servers that were hacked because the DNC refused them access!  Instead, the DNC hired a cybersecurity firm named Crowdstrike, closely affiliated wit the DNC, to investigate the hack of Podesta's email account and the FBI used this report to conclude Russian hacking.  

The problem with that is they identified Russia as te hacker by the Trojan that was used and that Trojan, once released long ago, had been cloned and used by many other hackers over the years.  The author of the original Trojan laughed at Crowdstrike's findings.   Another security firm hat analyzed Crowdstrike's findings state that while the hackers may have ben Russian there was zero proof they were government connected.

To make matters worse, Crowdstrike is very anti-Russia and has fingered Russia for hacks before, most importantly when they announced that the Rusians had crippled 80% of the Ukraine's howitzers by hacking an app.  This was later proved false and also found to be based on a Russian' bloggers posts.  Crowdstrike quietly retracted that report but only after the democrats crowed about it.

Now Crowdstrike is retracting their report on the DNC hack and is refusing to testify before congress.  Unfortunately for congress and the FBI Crowdstrike is the only forensic evidence available for this hack.  Even worse, Crowdstrike is very closely affiliated with the DNC and may have reported what they wanted to be true rather than what they had really found.   So what we have is a hack on DNC servers that may have been committed by anyone with basic hacking skills and, literally, no evidence of any kind that the Russian government was involved!

Why the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers, despite the FBI's warning that this was not recommended and that without access they couldn't determine anything, is the big question.  Were they hiding the fact that the Russians didn't really hack the servers or was there criminal activity on the servers the DNC didn't want law enforcement  to see?  Pure speculation at this point but any evidence is assuredly gone now so too late to go back and reinvestigate. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4376628/New-questions-claim-Russia-hacked-election.html

Some of my info is from other sources but The Dailymail is the first mainstream source to acknowledge what is going on with Crowdstrike.

Hmmm, interesting information coming to light! I think the DNC should be investigated fully and a warrant issued to force them to hand over the server information to the FBI.

Something does not smell right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.