Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on March 04, 2017, 10:07:10 AM
-
This is going to get ugly. I hope Trump has the evidence to back it all up.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/04/trump-accuses-obama-administration-wiretapping-trump-tower-phones.html
-
If Trump is just shooting from the hip like he does with so many other pronouncements, then the Dems are going to hand him his ass.
If Trump has ironclad evidence that Obama and crew did wiretap his property, nothing will come of it. Obama's team will make the claim that it was all part of a legit investigation. There have already been reports of Obama and Co. going to the FISA court to get authorization for the taps.
Really, this is a lose-lose deal for Trump. He should have kept his mouth shut.
-
Oh, he's probably got some cards up his sleeve. Can't imagine what, but odds are he's got something going. P= 0.8; 5:4 odds.
I wonder, with no real basis, if he's ultimately setting things up to go after that phony FISA court system and maybe the whole surveillance act. "Special Needs Doctrine," meaning "Our Party needs to screw the other Party," so weasel-words are generated by Our Party's lawyers to justify a wiretap. Of anybody, including Trump's pre-Presidency operations.
( ;/ Maybe he's setting it up to legitimize wiretapping of the DNC. :rofl: )
Just blue-skying it. 'Twould also be funny if it ultimately boils down to a shootin' battle between SCOTUS and the FISA courts.
Terry the Greek =D
-
Maybe it's not a lose-lose for Trump. The way the FISA courts operate is unacceptable in a free society. Secret courts, secret evidence, and the judges aren't even allowed to keep records of their decisions? Where's the right of appeal, if there's no record of what "evidence" was presented to obtain a warrant? It's about time somebody challenged this kangaroo court system.
What possible justification could a political office holder have for wiretapping the telephones of a leading contender from the opposition party? "National security"? Was Trump advocating armed rebellion? Was Trump proposing the overthrow of the United States government? No -- Trump was campaigning for the office that Obama held. But it would have been easy for a Democratic AG's office to find a Democratic judge who would have been overjoyed to sign a warrant to spy on Trump, since the warrant would be secret and there would never be any record of the judge's decision other than a signature on a piece of paper. Thus, no accountability whatsoever.
-
I agree with the first two posts. He'd better have 100% concrete evidence. This is the "Twitter Trump" that I don't like, because all too often, what he "outs" in this way is nebulous. Not a big deal if it's putting a burr under some senator's saddle in political back and forth. However, this is the kind of thing you don't announce unless you have irrefutable evidence. Otherwise the only people that will cut him slack will be true blue Trumpites.
-
What possible justification could a political office holder have for wiretapping the telephones of a leading contender from the opposition party? "National security"? Was Trump advocating armed rebellion? Was Trump proposing the overthrow of the United States government? No -- Trump was campaigning for the office that Obama held. But it would have been easy for a Democratic AG's office to find a Democratic judge who would have been overjoyed to sign a warrant to spy on Trump, since the warrant would be secret and there would never be any record of the judge's decision other than a signature on a piece of paper. Thus, no accountability whatsoever.
Yeah, that's basically what I was sayin'. But you put it better than I did.
Terry, 230RN
-
Without some pretty solid evidence, Trump will look bad - very bad - even to his supporters.
Even for a man with his "shoot from the hip" style, I suspect that there's something to this - maybe the new AG found records at the Justice Department of Obama/Holder/Lynch playing some hanky panky with wiretaps.
We'll see if this story develops legs. [popcorn]
-
I think you mean...
Shoot from the LIP
-
Trump saying "I'll see your fake news and raise you ...
More fake news!"
If he wants to be a good and effective press he needs to stop stepping on his dick
-
I agree with the first two posts. He'd better have 100% concrete evidence. This is the "Twitter Trump" that I don't like, because all too often, what he "outs" in this way is nebulous. Not a big deal if it's putting a burr under some senator's saddle in political back and forth. However, this is the kind of thing you don't announce unless you have irrefutable evidence. Otherwise the only people that will cut him slack will be true blue Trumpites.
I cringe just like you do every time I read about a new Presidential tweet, yet...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F68.media.tumblr.com%2F91cb7c4ce469076e2dde8618c94bbf24%2Ftumblr_inline_omaxbwCuaW1t63ajm_500.jpg&hash=6480cae888531e0ee38a78dcf1eb84c73b9162dc)
-
I cringe just like you do every time I read about a new Presidential tweet, yet...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F68.media.tumblr.com%2F91cb7c4ce469076e2dde8618c94bbf24%2Ftumblr_inline_omaxbwCuaW1t63ajm_500.jpg&hash=6480cae888531e0ee38a78dcf1eb84c73b9162dc)
Yup, you (and Scott) are exactly right.
I also totally get that for his other tweets, and was kind of coming around to that way of thinking. Still don't like them, but if they work...
This just seems to be a pretty big one though, at least if he has no hard evidence. But as the cartoon states, historically he seems to have a knack for pulling a rabbit out of his hat.
-
there is something to this story, I'm sure.
local ABC/NBC 6oclock news said "Obama didn't AUTHORIZE a wire tap"
Right, he just smiled when told about it and nodded his head in approval.
Notice how no one in the media is saying "no way would obama/dnc do this" they are saying there is no proof.
-
Yup, you (and Scott) are exactly right.
I also totally get that for his other tweets, and was kind of coming around to that way of thinking. Still don't like them, but if they work...
This just seems to be a pretty big one though, at least if he has no hard evidence. But as the cartoon states, historically he seems to have a knack for pulling a rabbit out of his hat.
Trump has 24 million Twitter followers. The daily circulation of the New York Times is 551,500. The daily circulation of the WAPO is 474,767. The NBC Nightly News has a daily viewership of 8.5 million. ABC has 9.03 million. CBS has 7.29 million. That's 25.8 million total for those media outlets. Trump reaches almost as many as those big five combined.
-
Obama din't authorize the wiretapping, but when he became aware of it he did an interpretive dance indicating he was pleased with the mating ritual
-
This will go down like Iraq WMD. Ten years from now anyone with a clue will know that Trump was substantially correct, but at that point what difference will it make?
-
Obama din't authorize the wiretapping, but when he became aware of it he did an interpretive dance indicating he was pleased with the mating ritual
That's how executives establish plausible deniability - THEY don't personally order illegal/unethical activities, they just hire those who will do it on their own without explicit instructions.
-
Some interesting claims being made by Hannity and Mark Levin:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/04/hannity-tweetstorm-grills-obama-underlings-on-fisa-trump-attack/
Hannity grillied the three on the shocking revelations recently outlined by radio host Mark Levin and expanded on by Breitbart News that show that starting in June, 2016 the Obama administration filed requests with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers.
Not sure at this point how much substance there is to these reports. Should be fun to watch.
ETA: Mukasey says there likely was surveillance of Trump Tower at the behest of the AG: http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/322403-former-bush-ag-trump-right-that-there-was-surveillance
More ETA: National Review weighs in: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump
-
Never a boring day int the Trump Administration :lol:
[popcorn]
-
Never a boring day int the Trump Administration in the Democrat Resistance Movement :lol:
FIFY
-
More ETA: National Review weighs in: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump
Good article.
-
Meanwhile, the day before the inauguration...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=2
The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.
-
I was looking for that article but got tired of searching.
-
Having congress investigate this seems a little strange to me. What information are they going to be able to get out of the IC that Trump couldn't?
Chaffetz also acknowledged that as president, Trump has the authority to prove his allegation true by declassifying the FISA court order that presumably would have been needed to authorize a wiretap on Trump Tower. If Trump’s allegation is true, Chaffetz said, “the paper trail should be there.”
-
I saw the National Review article via twitter. It made some good points about the denials being carefully worded. I think that sort of careful denial has been a common occurrence from the Obama Administration over the last 8 years. Apparently the Obama Justice Department did request surveillance permission from the FISA court earlier and were denied (request mentioned Trump's name). They asked again in October without mentioned Trump's name and were given the go ahead. The article also mentioned anything resulting from that investigation is classified so releasing that information is a felony.
They also point out this isn't a criminal investigation, but related to intelligence gathering and national security.
-
The Obama gang tried last June to get a warrant from a criminal court judge, but were denied. As mentioned before, they tried to get a warrant from a FISA court, which is usually easy as pie, but were denied. They then got a FISA warrant on a more limited request. The question is, for what?
Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador was revealed. He was a private citizen at the time of the call. How could his part of the call be recorded without a warrant? There's been a lot of stories leaked to the press that would have to have come from surveillance, and a warrant would have been needed for that surveillance.
Trump's now moved the Sessions "issue" off the table, and put Dems ondefense. But for how long?
-
Trump's now moved the Sessions "issue" off the table, and put Dems ondefense. But for how long?
And everyone who is not a Democrat cheerleader can see blindfolded that their denials are meaningless.
IMO, it is another positive about Trump's Twitter account. It is a very useful tool to change and drive the the media discussion rather than allow it to drive him.
-
This literally is Watergate 2.0. Wiretapping the presidential campaign of the opposing party. I foresee all the records in this being released, and perhaps a rollback of the FISA court.
Politically, this will really hurt the "resistance", and be able to paint them for the Nazis they truly are.
-
This literally is Watergate 2.0. Wiretapping the presidential campaign of the opposing party. I foresee all the records in this being released, and perhaps a rollback of the FISA court.
Politically, this will really hurt the "resistance", and be able to paint them for the Nazis they truly are.
In your dreams. ;) The Dem's are still more corrupt than the R's, and will find a way to make this go away.
-
and perhaps a rollback of the FISA court.
That would be cool, though I don't know where Trump and his advisors stand on it. They may like it when it's the goose and not the gander.
-
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder779/38535779.jpg)
-
Just a little additional point: when Flynn talked to the Russian ambassador, he did so from Trump Tower.
-
This literally is Watergate 2.0.
No. Monitoring communication with Russia is not the same as breaking and entering into a political office. Nobody in Watergate was looking for foreign intel, it wasn't approved by courts, and it wasn't "let go" for months until somebody threw a hissy fit.
It has been known since Oct 2016 that the communication between Trump Towers and Russia were being monitored. Trump is now making an issue out of it because he has been made aware of his "wiretapping" by Mark Levin via Brietbart. We have a president that acts not on the best information possible, but rather by what he sees on the news or finds on Brietbart. This is only one step higher than having an Alex Jones fan in the Whitehouse.
Trump should have been aware of the wiretapping when it originally hit the news. He should have been able to figure out WHY that happened, but if he didn't get it he should have found somebody to explain it to him during the campaign. Once elected he certainly should have found somebody to explain to him what happened but instead he's acting upon a report by Mark f*cking Levin and assuming that's the whole truth.
-
No. Monitoring communication with Russia is not the same as breaking and entering into a political office. Nobody in Watergate was looking for foreign intel, it wasn't approved by courts, and it wasn't "let go" for months until somebody threw a hissy fit.
It has been known since Oct 2016 that the communication between Trump Towers and Russia were being monitored. Trump is now making an issue out of it because he has been made aware of his "wiretapping" by Mark Levin via Brietbart. We have a president that acts not on the best information possible, but rather by what he sees on the news or finds on Brietbart. This is only one step higher than having an Alex Jones fan in the Whitehouse.
Trump should have been aware of the wiretapping when it originally hit the news. He should have been able to figure out WHY that happened, but if he didn't get it he should have found somebody to explain it to him during the campaign. Once elected he certainly should have found somebody to explain to him what happened but instead he's acting upon a report by Mark f*cking Levin and assuming that's the whole truth.
But if he hadn't tweeted it, we wouldn't have the delicious, frantic denials of things that were essentially common knowledge two months ago.
And that my friend is worth the price of admission.
-
Also, if he had tweeted about it earlier, it likely would have been buried under a lot of other news. Sometimes it is good to pick the right time to publicize things like that. Weren't the first comments about all this about Trump not having proof?
-
The Trump administration has been plagued since the election with leaks, some serious. Now we know where the leaks came from, and who engineered them.
I think Trump was mad about Sessions' recusal, and decided to put into tweets what he already knew. I think only a very few people had connected the dots and realized that the Obama intelligence community was wiretapping the Trump team, even though news stories made that pretty clear. Now we have a huge story that really hurts the Dem's.
This should remain a big story for a long time. It has more sexiness than Watergate. To keep it alive, though, they're going to need a real investigation by Congress or, better yet, by the Justice Department. If the latter, Sessions' recusal could be a sticking point.
-
I think only a very few people had connected the dots and realized that the Obama intelligence community was wiretapping the Trump team
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5nd6YvT.png&hash=f31e5c3822843842c3aeddcd179b097524694b48)
So much of this story is still based on those anonymous sources that no one trusts. When it first came out that Trump associates were under investigation for ties to Russia it was all "fake news" but now it's not anymore? I'll wait for some real evidence to be released - which Trump should have the power to do pretty easily. I'd love to see what justification they brought to the FISA court.
-
So much of this story is still based on those anonymous sources that no one trusts. When it first came out that Trump associates were under investigation for ties to Russia it was all "fake news" but now it's not anymore? I'll wait for some real evidence to be released - which Trump should have the power to do pretty easily. I'd love to see what justification they brought to the FISA court.
Flynn made the call to the Ruskie ambassador from Trump tower. How did anyone get the transcript of the call unless it had been tapped?
-
Flynn made the call to the Ruskie ambassador from Trump tower. How did anyone get the transcript of the call unless it had been tapped?
Well, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the Rooski was the target of that particular surveillance. I still believe the previous administration did play dirty and the tap that Trump tweeted about was real and they were trying to find something, anything, to help keep him from being elected. I think they knew HRC was in deep kimchee with her election prospects. I will wear the hat proudly. [tinfoil]
bob
-
Flynn made the call to the Ruskie ambassador from Trump tower. How did anyone get the transcript of the call unless it had been tapped?
It's the Russian ambassador, if he's under surveillance (which I would assume) then they don't need to tap Trump Tower to hear that conversation.
Anyway this isn't a case where we should need to rely on anonymous sources. Trump is in charge of the department that has all of this information and he should be able to provide some evidence to back it up. Instead he took to twitter and then the next day his spokesman said they didn't want to talk about it anymore.
-
Trumps tweets are always to establish HIS narrative. They are about as truthful as the common fare the mainstream media peddles.
I wouldn't be surprised if this particular tweet was a form of "anchoring" or "pre-suasion". Using his bully pulpit to prepare the ground for the narrative he is going to try and establish in the coming days/weeks ahead.
While I have to agree he looks and sounds dumb much of the time and says cringe worthy things on occasion; I just don't see how a big dummy can build, lose and rebuild a fortune, become a media star, get the Republican nomination for President and then win the general election by employing a better strategy than all the professional politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Trying to convince the public that Trump is a Russian puppet when everything Trump proposes is pure USA nationalism seems like an odd strategy. Up to this point I've seen zero evidence of any impropriety. Congresspersons and public officials, R's and D's alike, are all in constant communication with Russian officials. The whole story is sort of weird. Trump is a Russian stooge who is being blackmailed into making America great again? :lol:
-
Trying to convince the public that Trump is a Russian puppet when everything Trump proposes is pure USA nationalism seems like an odd strategy. Up to this point I've seen zero evidence of any impropriety. Congresspersons and public officials, R's and D's alike, are all in constant communication with Russian officials. The whole story is sort of weird. Trump is a Russian stooge who is being blackmailed into making America great again? :lol:
Nearly any accusation from the Left is their projecting their faults onto their enemies. Anyone with eyes can see which side of the aisle is more friendly to Moscow.
-
And that my friend is worth the price of admission.
<grin> True, true.
I suspect President Trump directed one of his (possibly private) agencies to clean out the comm lines in Trump Tower and thereby uncovered the actual proof of what was known previously.
I mean, like, y'know, it's his freakin' building.
A really devious mind might even suspect that he actually approved the surreptitious tapping by his opposition. But you'd have to have a really devious mind to think that. :D
"And that, my friend, is worth the price of admission."
Terry, 230RN
-
Well, it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the Rooski was the target of that particular surveillance. I still believe the previous administration did play dirty and the tap that Trump tweeted about was real and they were trying to find something, anything, to help keep him from being elected. I think they knew HRC was in deep kimchee with her election prospects. I will wear the hat proudly. [tinfoil]
bob
From what I understand, the results of the foreign intelligence wire tapping are classified so it was still a crime on someone's part to release the transcript of the call with Flynn. That is the real crime of that story that some people are actively trying to ignore.
-
^^^^
Exactly, and once it is known there is an American on the line all Constitutional protections apply. I hate to sound like Sean Hannity or Mark Levin but I think the ability to share information across all the intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections was done just so that it would encourage more leaks. If you have 17x the number of people who have access to the information it will be at least 17x harder to pin down the source, not impossible but much harder. IMO.
bob
-
It's the Russian ambassador, if he's under surveillance (which I would assume) then they don't need to tap Trump Tower to hear that conversation.
Anyway this isn't a case where we should need to rely on anonymous sources. Trump is in charge of the department that has all of this information and he should be able to provide some evidence to back it up. Instead he took to twitter and then the next day his spokesman said they didn't want to talk about it anymore.
Exactly what proof are you expecting Trump throw out there? Most of that stuff is probably classified.
The tweets accomplished their purpose. They put out the story of the Obama administration wire tapping the Presidential candidate of the opposition party during an election. It also put the story out there in a way that forced the anti-Trump media to talk about it if only to report on the Democrat denials. Mission accomplished.
It had the added benefit of taking the Secretary Sessions character assassination off the media front page.
-
It's the Russian ambassador, if he's under surveillance (which I would assume) then they don't need to tap Trump Tower to hear that conversation.
Anyway this isn't a case where we should need to rely on anonymous sources. Trump is in charge of the department that has all of this information and he should be able to provide some evidence to back it up. Instead he took to twitter and then the next day his spokesman said they didn't want to talk about it anymore.
Trump is President of the United States.
As such he is the head of a government that hates, despises and is actively working to undermine his every move.
While I understand and empathize with some of your stances and opinions on how things should be...
I find myself looking at the realities on the ground as well as acknowledging all the behind the scenes stuff I don't know and I have to say, Trump is doing a way better job than I could have imagined UNDER THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
Do I have a soft spot for Ron and Rand Paul libertarian conservatism? You betcha.
The reason Ron or Rand isn't President is because what they propose isn't in the realm of the possible IMHO.
As a DittoHead I would think you would be encouraged by much of what has occurred. El Rushbo has got with the program yet you seem to be continually firing your artillery to the right.
Like you, we all want to see a more constitutional republic way of running our government. Unfortunately, there is the congress and the voting public who don't agree with our prescription.
What would you have Trump do differently in dealing with enemies within as well as enemies without?
-
Exactly what proof are you expecting Trump throw out there? Most of that stuff is probably classified.
The FISA application would be a great place to start and if it's classified then maybe he shouldn't be tweeting about it?
He also has the authority to declassify that stuff and if the investigation was without merit, just politically motivated, then releasing that information shouldn't be a problem. If it's an ongoing investigation then, again, he shouldn't be tweeting about it. He is in a rather unique position to provide evidence of these claims, yet he has not.
El Rushbo has got with the program yet you seem to be continually firing your artillery to the right.
Yeah, I never hopped onto the Trump train and likely never will. I think he will (at best) make short term gains in exchange for long term disaster. I wouldn't be disappointed at all to see him retire down to Mar-a-Lago to spend the rest of his days golfing and have Pence take his place.
-
The FISA application would be a great place to start and if it's classified then maybe he shouldn't be tweeting about it?
He also has the authority to declassify that stuff and if the investigation was without merit, just politically motivated, then releasing that information shouldn't be a problem. If it's an ongoing investigation then, again, he shouldn't be tweeting about it. He is in a rather unique position to provide evidence of these claims, yet he has not.
Given all the battles he is fighting, I am not going to gripe about no one laying evidence in front of me. I don't really have a trust issue when it comes to Trump. What he said is being backed up by a bunch of media sources I have some trust with so that is good enough for me at this time. If it comes to the point of criminal charges against someone, then there will be evidence put forth.
-
The FISA application would be a great place to start and if it's classified then maybe he shouldn't be tweeting about it?
He also has the authority to declassify that stuff and if the investigation was without merit, just politically motivated, then releasing that information shouldn't be a problem. If it's an ongoing investigation then, again, he shouldn't be tweeting about it. He is in a rather unique position to provide evidence of these claims, yet he has not.
It really doesn't matter if he has the proof. He took the Dem's demands for an investigation into a Russian scandal that never existed, and turned it on them. The media, in an effort to smear Trump, reported that there were wiretaps and such. Now that Trump has launched these charges, the media is saying, "what taps?" He has them running trying to cover for Obama. It can't be both. The left has to decide if they want this to continue.
This wouldn't be the first time Trump outsmarted themat their own game.
-
It really doesn't matter if he has the proof.
Does it even matter if it's true then?
-
IIRC, The President has the ultimate authority on what is, or is not (or can be) declassified.
-
Does it even matter if it's true then?
What makes you think you know the truth about anything regarding our government?
It's lies, manipulation and deceit from the top all the way down and it always has been. Trump has just forced it all out into the open and he plays their game as good or better than them.
If the mob knew the truth I suspect it would get ugly fast ...
-
What makes you think you know the truth about anything regarding our government?
If you'll recall, I'm the one looking for evidence. ???
It's lies, manipulation and deceit from the top all the way down and it always has been. Trump has just forced it all out into the open and he plays their game as good or better than them.
If "playing the game" means lying then I'm not going to be thrilled about the president doing a better job at it. If the media is putting fake news out there it does not give the president permission to put fake news out there, even if it changes the narrative, gets some bad headlines pushed out of the news cycle, or makes the democrats look bad. The president should be held to a higher standard than buzzfeed!
-
At this point, it seems even the Democrats have conceded that, yes, the phones were tapped at Trump Tower during the election campaign. The only real question remaining is whether or not Obama ordered it or knew about it.
-
At this point, it seems even the Democrats have conceded that, yes, the phones were tapped at Trump Tower during the election campaign. The only real question remaining is whether or not Obama ordered it or knew about it.
I've read some suggestions that Loretta Lynch may be the fall guy (er, woman) for this.
-
Does it even matter if it's true then?
I think as early as Saturday evening or Sunday, there were former Obama administration people putting out statements saying Obama himself never authorized anything and no one ever broke the law. They conceded the existence of the surveillance pretty quickly. The questions on proof continued though.
Yesterday I heard someone found an archived headline or article from the New York Times from just a couple weeks ago stating there was surveillance.
-
Yesterday I heard someone found an archived headline or article from the New York Times from just a couple weeks ago stating there was surveillance.
I'm pretty sure that's this (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html) article that says:
Mr. Manafort has done business in Ukraine and Russia. Some of his contacts there were under surveillance by the National Security Agency for suspected links to Russia’s Federal Security Service, one of the officials said.
It does say there was surveillance, but it doesn't say any Trump associates were the targets or anything about Trump tower.
-
I'm pretty sure that's this (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html) article that says:It does say there was surveillance, but it doesn't say any Trump associates were the targets or anything about Trump tower.
Perzactly. The implied statement being "We were spying on/wiretapping/listening in on/intercepting/etc. the calls made by the Russians. Now, it has come out that they were wiretapping Trump Tower, which is a fish of entirely different plumage.
And yes, it is like Watergate. Wiretapping the phones of political opponents crosses that line.
Which explains the constant implication of "Russia hacked the election". Since they couldn't show any collusion between Trump (et al) and Russia, they could only imply it. and since Hillary losing was a complete surprise the hacking story actually gained traction among the low-information voters/disaffected lefties. Plus the Goebbels effect of repeating the lie, to discredit and delegitimize the Trump administration.
Now it's blowing up in their face. And it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. This will merely serve to drive more voters to Trump (if they can fix the abortion of a Healthcare "replacement" bill)....
-
If you'll recall, I'm the one looking for evidence. ???If "playing the game" means lying then I'm not going to be thrilled about the president doing a better job at it. If the media is putting fake news out there it does not give the president permission to put fake news out there, even if it changes the narrative, gets some bad headlines pushed out of the news cycle, or makes the democrats look bad. The president should be held to a higher standard than buzzfeed!
I feel your pain.
The days of us having leaders of high moral character (if there was ever a day like that) are long behind us I've concluded.
We could have an anti-hero or Hillary, those are our choices.
I feel Trump is probably less of an evil than the "lesser of two evils" Dole, McCain or Romney were, in the big scheme of things.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/
-
I feel your pain.
The days of us having leaders of high moral character (if there was ever a day like that) are long behind us I've concluded.
We could have an anti-hero or Hillary, those are our choices.
I feel Trump is probably less of an evil than the "lesser of two evils" Dole, McCain or Romney were, in the big scheme of things.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/
I was 22 when Watergate started, and I remember it clearly. If this were true, it would be much bigger than Watergate. I also remember the treatment of Nixon by the press, and it was nothing like what Trump is getting now. Everyone here knows that the treatment of Trump has been unlike that given to any other president or candidate for president. And much of the effort to undermine him is organized and coming from a powerful bunch.
Under these circumstances, I think it's pretty reasonable for Trump to take extraordinary measures. He's six weeks into his presidency and he still doesn't have all of his cabinet confirmed, much less the 500+ undersecretaries and such. His re-issue of his immigration executive order is going to be thwarted by another liberal judge. Obamacare reform is going to stall. I can think of no president who's faced this much stonewalling.
Any of the other primary candidates would have been crushed by now. Trump has spent his whole life in the media, good or bad. He knows how to use it, better than any politician. Even if he doesn't know right now for a fact that Trump Tower was bugged (the NY Times story is true or not true and, if true, Trump Tower was bugged), it's still a smart move for him to turn the barrel around to face his enemy.
-
How is Trump lying when he says the White House bugged Trump Tower? Why is that dishonest?
-
He's six weeks into his presidency and he still doesn't have all of his cabinet confirmed, much less the 500+ undersecretaries and such.
I'm old enough to remember when they criticized Trump for not appointing Cabinet nominees quickly enough.
-
His latest nominee-in-waiting-infinitum is the deputy attorney general. Think that might be because Sessions recused himself from any investigation into the Trump campaign, and the Dem's want to make sure that if the DOJ looks into Obamagate, they want an Obama loyalist running the show? The guy served on the Watergate commission, was appointed by GW, and retained by Obama. Now the Dem's have criticism of him.
-
I feel Trump is probably less of an evil than the "lesser of two evils" Dole, McCain or Romney were, in the big scheme of things.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-first-president-turn-postmodernism/
I like the federalist article, that's an interesting way to look at it. You might be right about Trump being preferable to those other guys, I don't think I would have very much argument otherwise. If Trump acted like he does but was perfect on policy I could probably get behind him. He is not though and his "style" for lack of a better word does not sit well with me at all. There are small government conservatives out there that actually base their positions on principles, have had those principals/positions for more than a single election, and don't act like buffoons. We even had one or two running in the primaries...
Any of the other primary candidates would have been crushed by now.
I'm not as convinced of that, but it's pretty hard to play out a hypothetical that far with any amount of certainty. They didn't have much success against Trump and the media frenzy surrounding him, I will admit that, so maybe they wouldn't have fared any better had things turned out differently.
the NY Times story is true or not true and, if true, Trump Tower was bugged
How do you get that out of the NYT article? Are you looking at a different one than I linked?
-
I'm not as convinced of that, but it's pretty hard to play out a hypothetical that far with any amount of certainty. They didn't have much success against Trump and the media frenzy surrounding him, I will admit that, so maybe they wouldn't have fared any better had things turned out differently.
If they couldn't take down Trump during the primaries, how well do you think they'd be dealing with the Dem's and the media now? Any one of them would be getting the same treatment. It would have been the Russians helping John Kasich of all people.
As for the NYT, I'm lumping them in with other media reports that point to the bugging being at Trump Tower.
-
It really doesn't matter if he has the proof. He took the Dem's demands for an investigation into a Russian scandal that never existed, and turned it on them. The media, in an effort to smear Trump, reported that there were wiretaps and such. Now that Trump has launched these charges, the media is saying, "what taps?" He has them running trying to cover for Obama. It can't be both. The left has to decide if they want this to continue.
This wouldn't be the first time Trump outsmarted themat their own game.
And the kicker is he did it with a freaking tweet. How frail is the dem/liberal foundation that a freaking tweet can do that much. These people can't put their house of cards back together faster that Trump is blowing it down. With tweets! I heard Rush talking about the media complaining that they can't keep up with Trump. They're having to work too hard and work too long of hours.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Trump is truly turning out to be the Teflon President. Everything the left and MSM does to "take him down" only serves to endear Trumps supporters to him even more and also shows how weak and ineffectual they have become.
And I do hope they continue. The more they howl and scream, the more they show their weaknesses...
-
In his recent interview with the President, Tucker Carlson asked him about the wiretapping accusations and Trump is certainly in no hurry to share his evidence with us if he has any.
"Let's see whether or not I proved it,” Trump said. “You looked at some proof. I mean, let's see whether or not I prove it. I just don't choose to do it right now. … I think we have some very good stuff, and we're in the process of putting it together, and I think it's going to be very demonstrative."
He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to share it with congress either:
"We don’t have any evidence that took place...I don’t think there was an actual tap of Trump Tower."
"based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016."
Trump does claim to have something to submit to them and that "very interesting items" will come out in the next few weeks but I suspect this is another one of those things he talks big on and then just falls by the wayside, forgotten by most. Comey is testifying next week though so something interesting could come out of that I guess.
Trump also felt it was important to clarify now:
“Don't forget, when I say 'wiretapping,' those words were in quotes. That really covers, because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff. But that really covers surveillance and many other things. And nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, but that's a very important thing.”
;/
-
In his recent interview with the President, Tucker Carlson asked him about the wiretapping accusations and Trump is certainly in no hurry to share his evidence with us if he has any.
Of course not; never turn over the evidence early, and that way your opponents have to (try to) think fast to (try to) explain it away. Keeping them rushed makes mistakes more likely.
-
I wouldn't say he's the Teflon President. If he was, his approval ratings wouldn't be dropping this early.
The "Tappergate" Tweets are one of the first things that's sticking with him though. Usually his admin just ignores things until they go away but I think too many people are involved now for this one to just go away. You're already seeing them roll back accusations and start to say they didn't mean what they said literally.
But who knows, maybe they've got something incriminating and it's just being held close to the vest by some super-secret alternative spy organization and it's going to be a bombshell.
I doubt that, though. Sean Spicer reminds me more of Baghdad Bob every day. I imagine he regrets taking that job intensely.
Some of the things Trump is trying to do are good in my eyes, and some are terrible--but his inability to control himself is going to ruin what positive impact he may have. It's hard not to be ashamed of him when he acts that way.
We'll see, though. At least he gives the press something to do.
-
It's not an inability to control himself. Study his "crazy" acts, and you'll find he was crazy like a fox.
-
Trump also felt it was important to clarify now:;/
Exactly what do you think wiretapping means these days? The authorities haven't had to physically tap wires in years. If Trump said someone was reading his emails, would you go looking for envelopes that were opened and resealed?
-
I think it means listening to his phone calls.
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!
-
Either Obama ordered it or his administration allowed it to happen. Tomato tomato.
-
Either Obama ordered it or his administration allowed it to happen. Tomato tomato.
Or there was never an investigation of Trump's campaign staff, and the media was lying. It can't be both.
-
Investigation confirmed:
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.
Nothing from Comey to support wiretapping accusations:
With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The department has no information that supports those tweets.
-
Show the FISA court records and then we'll know that it never happened. ;/ ;/
-
I thought what was said previously was the FISA court approved an investigation warrant which didn't mention Trump, but only people working for him. That opens the door to wire tapping the entire team so we'll see. I am sure when one of those people called Trump, the wire tapping disconnected.
-
What's instructive is what Comey DIDN'T say.
With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI.
So the NSA and the CIA and the DIA and whatever other alphabet agencies out there have wiretapping capability haven't told Comey directly that they tapped Trump Tower, and Comey told his secretary to ask the guy at the next desk if he knew about anyone in the FBI wiretapping Trump Tower and the guy said no. So Comey (maybe) hasn't lied -- but we don't know that there were no wiretaps.
There's an old saying: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
-
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
True, but it's going to be really hard to prove a negative. The burden of proof is not on Comey or congress even though he tried to punt it to them, it's on Trump.
He made the accusation, he's the one who should be able to back it up with something.
-
I wonder if perhaps it was Trump's own private security people who may have discovered the tapping. The ABCXYZ agencies might not be privy to that, hence have "no evidence."
It is his own building, after all.
Or the Trump group may have "pulled a Midway" on potential wire tappers. You give out false information on your suspected lines and see if it gets out or your opponent's behavior changes according to the misinformation. I refer to the U.S. ploy to determine where the Japanese intended to attack in WWII. We sent out false information in the clear that the water system on Midway had broken down. Since we had broken the Japanese code, when the Japanese reported that Midway was short of water, we knew they intended to hit Midway.
Once again, ABCXYZ would not know of something like this.
"I am sure when one of those people called Trump, the wire tapping disconnected"
That fairly drips with sarcasm, don't it? :rofl:
Terry
-
I can't imagine Trump showing any restraint if he actually had evidence--especially if it was privately acquired. He'd be announcing that crap from the rooftops asap.
He's on a fishing expedition and he's coming up dry, so far.
I wonder if Obama could sue him for libel? Probably hard to prove damages since the only people who would believe the tweets without seeing evidence first already think Obama's a secret gay imam Nazi traitor. ;/
-
I can't imagine Trump showing any restraint if he actually had evidence--especially if it was privately acquired. He'd be announcing that crap from the rooftops asap.
He's on a fishing expedition and he's coming up dry, so far.
I wonder if Obama could sue him for libel? Probably hard to prove damages since the only people who would believe the tweets without seeing evidence first already think Obama's a secret gay imam Nazi traitor. ;/
He didn't come up dry. It did come out that the DoJ went to a FISA court in June to monitor ("Wiretap") the Trump organization and got rejected. They went back in Oct with a narrower request (fewer people as targets) and it was approved. So there was "wiretapping" done of the Trump Tower communications, however "narrowly" focused it was....
-
He didn't come up dry. It did come out that the DoJ went to a FISA court in June to monitor ("Wiretap") the Trump organization and got rejected. They went back in Oct with a narrower request (fewer people as targets) and it was approved. So there was "wiretapping" done of the Trump Tower communications, however "narrowly" focused it was....
That's a chicken and egg thing. Those claims are what got Trump fired up in the first place, not the evidence of them. As far as I know the FBI says that never happened and no actual sources for that claim have been found by anyone reputable.
Trump seems to have used the Brietbart article as his source for these claims in the first place, sent out Tweets, promised that he had evidence, which hasn't yet happened.
Has something else come up in the past two weeks that changes that? I just did some Googling and I don't see anything since the initial Tweetstorm. This has a decent timeline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.52dcf0c692f8
The only things that have changed since March 6th when that was written is the FBI officially says that didn't happen, and the two head people on the intelligence committee (R and D) have said they're not aware of that taking place.
-
Also, Comey's the guy who went after Hillary and called her out in front of God and everyone on the nightly news--he's not an anti-conservative partisan so I don't know why he'd be standing up for Obama in these circumstances, unless you get all [tinfoil] [tinfoil] [tinfoil].
-
Something weird is up folks.
Nunes said the surveillance appears to have been legal, incidental collection and that it does not appear to have been related to concerns over collusion with Russia.
If this has nothing to do with Russia, then I assume it's part of a domestic criminal investigation -- and so I'm confused about the "incidental collection" part. I get that if you're talking about intercepting the Russian ambassador's calls; I don't get the usage in a domestic criminal case.
Also -- what crime?
Or -- are calls just generally intercepted?
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=368959
More here
-
That's a chicken and egg thing. Those claims are what got Trump fired up in the first place, not the evidence of them. As far as I know the FBI says that never happened and no actual sources for that claim have been found by anyone reputable.
Trump seems to have used the Brietbart article as his source for these claims in the first place, sent out Tweets, promised that he had evidence, which hasn't yet happened.
Has something else come up in the past two weeks that changes that? I just did some Googling and I don't see anything since the initial Tweetstorm. This has a decent timeline: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.52dcf0c692f8
The only things that have changed since March 6th when that was written is the FBI officially says that didn't happen, and the two head people on the intelligence committee (R and D) have said they're not aware of that taking place.
Is the FBI the only intelligency agency that would go to the FISA court? The genesis of this is leaked conversations in the media that appeared to come from someone who monitored the conversation. If not the FBI, then the culprits are keeping quiet.
The intelligence committee people wouldn't necessarily know anything so "not aware" is a political non-answer.
-
New stuff just out today. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/22/trump-team-communications-captured-by-intelligence-community-surveillance-nunes-says.html
So there was some spying that collected some things about Trumps team, at least. I guess we have to wait and see--either that means Trumps team was targeted, or they were caught up in all the Russia stuff being monitored, or both.
Interesting to see how things will shake down between this and the new Manafort stuff coming out of the AP today.
-
“From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection,” Nunes said. “We don’t know exactly how that was picked up, but we’re trying to get to the bottom of it.”
“What I’ve read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal. I don’t know that it’s right,”
"President-elect Trump and his team were put into intelligence reports. It’s probably fine, but the president himself needs to see this because clearly there was surveillance that was conducted"
Seems like Nunes kept things vague enough to spin however one might want
Outside of the White House on Wednesday, Nunes confirmed his opinion that Trump was not wiretapped in the sense the president meant with his March 4 tweet.
Though the media, and the political opposition, had attacked Trump for his claims about wiretapping, he later clarified that he had used the term to refer to surveillance in a general sense. He also suggested that more evidence would soon emerge. The result is a vindication of Trump’s controversial claims.
-
There's another possibility; someone was surveilling the Trump campaign (legally or illegally) and made a note of what Russians the Trumpsters were talking to. Now they manufacture a reason to surveil those particular Russians, capturing the communications they really want by "accident".
It's not much different than police making up a probable cause or exigent circumstance after-the-fact to sanitize evidence that they collected illegally.
-
What I love about this whole story is that when it's Trump claiming to be wire-tapped (when it turns out that everyone around him really WAS being wire-tapped, and he may have just barely missed being a target), conspiracy talk is bad, crazy, and dishonest. When the Left is claiming that Trump takes orders from, or owes his election to, the Russians (with no evidence yet forth-coming), conspiracy talk is quite in vogue. Whatever you do, don't remind the Left that Hillary Clinton claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy. And not just any conspiracy, but a vast - VAST! - conspiracy. :laugh:
-
Details of private phone calls that Trump and Flynn engaged in were leaked to media.
That's not speculation, it was in the news.
Considering his accusation the assumption is that Trump and Flynn were in Trump Tower during those calls so he made the logical connection.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue.
-
Some more info. If what is implied turns out to be hard evidence, the dems will have the "Watergate v2" they wanted, just not how they wanted it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showing-obama-administration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html
-
I'm not a Trump fan but I love what he does to the left.
Ever since he made those tweets the left has been doing their "har har har, look at this idiot" shtick while parroting "No proof! No proof!" but then we find out there is proof of the surveillance and now the left has to backpedal or find other things to pretend to be outraged about, all the while looking like absolute morons.
I don't know if these accusations against BHO will stick any better than any of the other things have but it does add to his legacy (negacy?) and there is a chance he can legally hurt by this.
-
Nunes is now walking back his "bombshell" a bit:
On Wednesday, Nunes (R-Tulare) said that names of transition team members had come up in conversations that were referred to in U.S. intelligence documents summarizing surveillance. But until Nunes sees the actual documents, he does not know whether any of the transition officials were actually part of the surveilled conversations or were just talked about by others, spokesman Jack Langer said Thursday.
??? Seems like there's a pretty big difference there!
I guess documents should be getting to the committee today, I doubt it's going to become any clearer very soon though. NRO has had a couple good summary (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446024/devin-nunes-fbi-director-james-comey-house-intelligence-committee-russia-2016-election-trump) articles (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446055/devin-nunes-trump-wiretap-allegation) on the fiasco in the past few days. Believe it or not, it's possible that both Trump was wrong and the Obama admin was abusing their "spying" tools.
-
And not just any conspiracy, but a vast - VAST! - conspiracy. :laugh:
And not just a vast conspiracy, but a vast RIGHT WING conspiracy. :O
-
I just heard on the TV that Loretta Lynch signed off on the surveillance. They were emphasizing that as Nunes said, it was likely legal overall, but depending on what the documents end up being:
1) With Lynch signing off, it may in fact not be legal, or would be extremely unethical, or at the very least fishy, given her background.
2) Even if the surveillance itself turns out to be legal, the unmasking would be a violation that should be severely punished, regardless of politics (though civil servant politics appears to be the motivator here).
-
Here's what I want to know. Rep. Nunes and the media have said that the Trump people were recorded as "incidental" to whatever surveillance was going on. Nunes said that this was not part of any international surveillance.
How much surveillance is going on nationwide involving how many US citizens to an extent that members of Trump's team and Trump himself were recorded "incidentally"? What are the odds that a significant number of Trump people just happened to be recorded when the FBI or CIA or NSA were listening to half the country talk about trout fishing?
I think at least parts of this are becoming obvious. What I'm already certain of is that nobody will be punished. If there's provable involvement by anyone high up in the Obama administration, the press won't report it.
Right now, the MSM is not focusing on the fact that there was illegal activity. They're focused on the Democrat complaints that Nunes went to the press and to Trump before going to members of the committee. IOW, don't report the crime, report the whiners.
-
Right now, the MSM is not focusing on the fact that there was illegal activity. They're focused on the Democrat complaints that Nunes went to the press and to Trump before going to members of the committee. IOW, don't report the crime, report the whiners.
S.O.P.
If Republicans do something wrong, report the something. If Democrats do something wrong, report the Republicans as trying to capitalize on it.
e.g. "Republicans Pounce..."
-
Here's what I want to know. Rep. Nunes and the media have said that the Trump people were recorded as "incidental" to whatever surveillance was going on. Nunes said that this was not part of any international surveillance.
How much surveillance is going on nationwide involving how many US citizens to an extent that members of Trump's team and Trump himself were recorded "incidentally"? What are the odds that a significant number of Trump people just happened to be recorded when the FBI or CIA or NSA were listening to half the country talk about trout fishing?
I think at least parts of this are becoming obvious. What I'm already certain of is that nobody will be punished. If there's provable involvement by anyone high up in the Obama administration, the press won't report it.
Right now, the MSM is not focusing on the fact that there was illegal activity. They're focused on the Democrat complaints that Nunes went to the press and to Trump before going to members of the committee. IOW, don't report the crime, report the whiners.
The "incidental" part can be orchestrated.
What I'm wondering right now: is Trump clever enough to float the unsubstantiated accusations (that we all criticized him about) and then let them just sit there, saying he'll provide evidence in a few weeks, to give Comey and Brennan (etc) an opportunity to perjure themselves?
-
S.O.P.
If Republicans do something wrong, report the something. If Democrats do something wrong, report the Republicans as trying to capitalize on it.
e.g. "Republicans Pounce..."
Yup. I'm wondering if Trump started this whole circus just to snooker the media to focus on something they would have otherwise ignored.
-
I've lately been wondering that when dealing with liars who believe there is no truth, perhaps a liar is the answer.
https://youtu.be/UWQZKqibPvQ
(Yes, I'm quoting the wisdom of Pirates of the Caribbean)
-
I've lately been wondering that when dealing with liars who believe there is no truth, perhaps a liar is the answer.
https://youtu.be/UWQZKqibPvQ
(Yes, I'm quoting the wisdom of Pirates of the Caribbean)
"In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil."
--Dame Judi Dench
(not from The Pirates of the Caribbean)
-
Accusations are cheap. Defense is expensive.
Defense is expensive....
-
Devin Nunes is now the "embattled (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-rejects-recusal-russia-investigation-236583)" House Intelligence Committee Chairman after Schiff and Pelosi called for him to step down but I doubt he's going anywhere. He apparently cancelled this weeks meetings (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/house-intelligence-committee-takes-week-nunes-scorn-article-1.3011271) though which is unfortunate because I'm sure they would have been interesting, or at the very least entertaining. Thankfully we have Trump keeping things interesting and at the same time helping us keep our eye on the really important stuff: Hillary Clinton (http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/03/28/donald-trump-tweets-russian-story-hoax/)!
This is by far my favorite news story of the year, new twists & turns everyday. [popcorn]
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/28/oh-my-president-obamas-own-defense-deputy-admits-obama-white-house-spied-on-candidatepresident-elect-trump/#more-130586
Sounds incriminating to me ...
Sometimes when a person is deep inside an echo-chamber of like-minded ideologues, they might not realize what they’re saying is rather revealing to those on the outside. That’s the set up for former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas (Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense) appearing on MSNBC and admitting first hand knowledge the Obama administration spied on candidate and president-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to gather “intelligence” for political use.
-
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/28/oh-my-president-obamas-own-defense-deputy-admits-obama-white-house-spied-on-candidatepresident-elect-trump/#more-130586
Sounds incriminating to me ...
Sometimes when a person is deep inside an echo-chamber of like-minded ideologues, they might not realize what they’re saying is rather revealing to those on the outside. That’s the set up for former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas (Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense) appearing on MSNBC and admitting first hand knowledge the Obama administration spied on candidate and president-elect Donald Trump’s transition team to gather “intelligence” for political use.
I haven't even seen anyone on Fox comment on that story. I listened to the interview. Why the silence?
-
I haven't even seen anyone on Fox comment on that story. I listened to the interview. Why the silence?
It's on FOX's Website now ... The crawl mentions Ben Carson's being confirmed which took place on 3/2/17 ... looks like MSNBC may have held on to this video for a while ...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/29/former-obama-official-discloses-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html
-
It's on FOX's Website now ... The crawl mentions Ben Carson's being confirmed which took place on 3/2/17 ... looks like MSNBC may have held on to this video for a while ...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/29/former-obama-official-discloses-rush-to-get-intelligence-on-trump-team.html
I love the concern that all this "evidence" of wrong doing by Trump needed to be preserved when these same people had been stonewalling just about every investigation into wrong doing by the Obama administration.
-
3/2/17 ... looks like MSNBC may have held on to this video for a while ...
Yeah this is kind of old, Farkas has been out there saying this (and other crazy stuff (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/trump-russia-intelligence-need-to-know-214520)) for a little while now.
One player in these sordid efforts at disinformation is former Obama Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas.
Ms. Farkas, who was a deputy assistant secretary of defense handling Russia and Ukrainian issues, resigned in September 2015 because she grew frustrated with President Obama’s handling of the Russian annexation of Crimea and its occupation of Eastern Ukraine.
So she joined the Hillary Clinton campaign as an advisor, noting that Mrs. Clinton “got it” on Russia.
Ms. Farkas has appeared repeatedly in media outlets and op-ed pieces, peddling her bill of goods questioning whether Donald Trump has been “compromised” by Russia.
Last month, she called for an independent investigation into Trump administration ties to Russia in mid-February 2017, saying the core question was, “Are you susceptible to blackmail from a foreign entity or individual?”
On Wednesday night, she told MSNBC host Brian Williams that she was part of an effort, described by the New York Times, to “preserve” classified intelligence about the alleged Trump-Russia ties, by making sure it was sent to Democrats on Capitol Hill.
-
This is (maybe) an interesting development. As mentioned in the comments, I have to wonder why he is initiating this, especially with the "immunity" caveat. On the face of it he makes it sound like he has dirt on Trump, however he could just be asking for immunity to protect himself from the vengeance of the left if they don't like what they hear.
http://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/03/30/bombshell-report-mike-flynn-willing-to-testify-in-exchange-for-immunity/
-
I would guess that since since no one agreed to give Flynn immunity so far and now his lawyer is going to the press about it, he's not gonna get it.
Also I'm pretty sure Kushner, Page, Stone, & Manafort all volunteered to talk to the committees without any immunity. So there's a lot of people they can to talk to first before they have to offer any immunity. He's gotta wish he never said this on TV:
When you are given immunity, that means you have probably committed a crime.
-
And the worm continues to turn:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel
-
Heh. "Dueling investigations." =D
-
surveillance reports Rice ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election
Before the Iowa caucasus even ??? That's way before the FBI even started the Russian interference investigation.
-
Before the Iowa caucasus even ??? That's way before the FBI even started the Russian interference investigation.
As I saw noted elsewhere, if true, this likely means the Obama administration was spying on other potential Republican nominees.
-
It sems Ms. Rice is changing her story -- again? Circling the wagons ...
http://lawnewz.com/video/susan-rice-wont-deny-trump-unmasking-requests-despite-claiming-ignorance-just-weeks-ago/
Unlike her flat out denial two weeks ago, the answers Rice provided today to Andrea Mitchell seem to square somewhat with Nunes initial allegations — that perhaps legal and lawful surveillance conducted by the Obama administration likely included American citizens incidentally swept up in the intel dragnet.
So, it would appear that Rice is now rapidly changing her story as more facts continue to come out about what really took place in the final months of the Obama administration, related to potential surveillance, even initially incidental, of members of the Trump transition team.
-
It sems Ms. Rice is changing her story -- again? Circling the wagons ...
http://lawnewz.com/video/susan-rice-wont-deny-trump-unmasking-requests-despite-claiming-ignorance-just-weeks-ago/
Yup. Makes it very difficult for the MSM that's defending her based on the "it was her job to do that" defense. If it was in fact her job*, then there would have been no reason for her to flatly deny knowing about such a thing, as if it was some kind of outrage to suggest she had the ability.
*It is in fact within the job description of senior national security advisors to unmask US citizens, given very good non-political reasons regarding national security for doing so. It does not appear to be the case here, and her initial denial is solidifying that.
-
It's all well and good about Rice unmasking US citizens caught up in foreign surveillance, but who here really thinks she will face sanctions over these violations of the law? We have seen this kind of thing before. She was a Democrat highly placed in a Democrat administration, meaning she automatically gets a pass.
-
The latest Democrat defenses boil down to this: the Trump surveillance story is a distraction from the Russia investigation, and the surveillance was "incidental". (The Democrats have discovered a new official word they like).
The FBI and CIA said last year they found no evidence of contact by the Trump team with the Russians. The Dem's keep demanding further investigations anyway, as it makes it look like the Trump team is guilty. Meanwhile, we have this "distraction" that is actually a crime at the highest levels of the Obama administration.
As for incidental, if they were surveilling the Russian ambassador, for example, and came across a conversation with Flynn, that would be incidental. Multiple intel reports with Flynn's name unmasked is not "incidental". It's a pattern. Multiple reports with multiple team Trump members unmasked is not "incidental" any more than winning the Powerball lottery six times in a row.
-
Plus:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446415/susan-rice-unmasking-trump-campaign-members-obama-administration-fbi-cia-nsa
As Director Comey explained, in answering questions posed by Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), those three agencies [FBI, CIA, and NSA] do collection, investigation, and analysis. In general, they handle any necessary unmasking — which, due to the aforementioned privacy obsessiveness, is extremely rare. Unlike Democratic-party operatives whose obsession is vanquishing Republicans, the three agencies have to be concerned about the privacy rights of Americans. If they’re not, their legal authority to collect the intelligence — a vital national-security power — could be severely curtailed when it periodically comes up for review by Congress, as it will later this year.
Those three collecting agencies — FBI, CIA, and NSA — must be distinguished from other components of the government, such as the White House. Those other components, Comey elaborated, “are consumers of our products.” That is, they do not collect raw intelligence and refine it into useful reports — i.e., reports that balance informational value and required privacy protections. They read those reports and make policy recommendations based on them. White House staffers are not supposed to be in the business of controlling the content of the reports; they merely act on the reports.
-
There would have been no intelligence need for Susan Rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. If there had been a real need to reveal the identities — an intelligence need based on American interests — the unmasking would have been done by the investigating agencies.
Why does she (or anyone in her position) even have that ability at all then?
And apparently she was not responsible for unmasking Flynn
two members of the Trump transition team had been unmasked by intelligence reports reviewed by Republican lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee.
One of them is Flynn, and the other transition team member hasn’t been publicly identified.
The GOP official, who the Journal said was familiar with deliberations by fellow Republicans on the intelligence committee, said Rice had requested the unmasking of at least one transition team member, but Flynn was not among them.
-
Why does she (or anyone in her position) even have that ability at all then?
And apparently she was not responsible for unmasking Flynn
Your quote is not dispositive.
The official in question said he knew she asked for two unmaskings, but Flynn was not one of the two he knew she asked for.
That does not prove that she did not ask for Flynn to be unmasked, it just means that he knows two for certain that she asked for, and neither of which are Flynn.
So, the quote does nothing but confirm she was asking for unmaskings; that is, unless you think the GOP official has complete knowledge of Executive Branch workings?
-
That does not prove that she did not ask for Flynn to be unmasked
Sure, nothing is going to prove that she didn't.
So, the quote does nothing but confirm she was asking for unmaskings; that is, unless you think the GOP official has complete knowledge of Executive Branch workings?
There was a lot of speculation that the documents Nunes went crazy over and have now been shared with the House Intelligence Committee would show that Rice was the one who unmasked Flynn. According to this source/article that's not the case. It is possible there are other documents out there (that the HIC doesn't have) that would show she unmasked Flynn. Is there anything that suggests that though, and if so why weren't they included with the stuff sent over to the HIC?
-
Sure, nothing is going to prove that she didn't. There was a lot of speculation that the documents Nunes went crazy over and have now been shared with the House Intelligence Committee would show that Rice was the one who unmasked Flynn. According to this source/article that's not the case. It is possible there are other documents out there (that the HIC doesn't have) that would show she unmasked Flynn. Is there anything that suggests that though, and if so why weren't they included with the stuff sent over to the HIC?
The claims of the spreadsheet and unmasking were not made by Mr. Nunes, therefore, I'm not very surprised to find that his data do not include that information.
Maybe there's a lot of spies who are getting pretty angry that a significant portion of the American people is starting to believe they are nothing but partisan hacks and multiple counter leaks have begun in response to the clearly political leaks suborned by the Obama administration?
-
The claims of the spreadsheet and unmasking were not made by Mr. Nunes, therefore, I'm not very surprised to find that his data do not include that information.
When you say "that information" do you mean something showing Rice unmasked Flynn (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/04/05/susan-rice-didnt-unmask-flynn/), and has anyone said that evidence does exist? The stuff from diGenova and the spreadsheet doesn't say anything about Flynn specifically, and all of the other speculation about Rice being the one to unmask Flynn seems to be based off Nunes documents. So what else is there?
counter leaks have begun in response to the clearly political leaks
While leaks in the name of justice are clearly different than leaks for political use, I don't think having warring factions of leakers within the intelligence community is going to end well for anyone.
-
When you say "that information" do you mean something showing Rice unmasked Flynn (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/04/05/susan-rice-didnt-unmask-flynn/), and has anyone said that evidence does exist? The stuff from diGenova and the spreadsheet doesn't say anything about Flynn specifically, and all of the other speculation about Rice being the one to unmask Flynn seems to be based off Nunes documents. So what else is there?
From what I have heard, all the "unmask" requests were either in writing or recorded so someone has all the records and it will come out eventually. Chasing the tail specifically on Flynn seems pointless.
-
While leaks in the name of justice are clearly different than leaks for political use, I don't think having warring factions of leakers within the intelligence community is going to end well for anyone.
I would say that leaks to Congressional intelligence committee members are not leaks. They are just informing their bosses in Congress as opposed to former bosses who used to be in the White House.
And I think I agree with mak's comment. There are a lot of people in the know in those agencies and I am sure many of them don't like the idea of their efforts being used against political opponents.
-
Chasing the tail specifically on Flynn seems pointless.
With Flynn there is a clear cut case of a felony that everyone agrees happened - the leak.
The unmasking is much more of a grey area and while it can be abused that seems a lot harder to prove & prosecute.
Sometimes it's OK to unmask and sometimes it isn't - has anyone been prosecuted for unmasking before?
-
Devin Nunes is now the "embattled (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-rejects-recusal-russia-investigation-236583)" House Intelligence Committee Chairman after Schiff and Pelosi called for him to step down but I doubt he's going anywhere.
Well I was wrong. Nunes is stepping aside from the Russia investigation:
http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/04/06/breaking-devin-nunes-stepping-aside-house-intel-russia-investigation/
-
Oh, for crying out loud. Why did he have to step aside?
Republicans have no spines. This move taints the Rice investigation.
-
Oh, for crying out loud. Why did he have to step aside?
Republicans have no spines. This move taints the Rice investigation.
He is only stepping aside from the one investigation. Probably to start checking out the unmasking business and surveillance of Presidential Candidates.
-
My apologies if this has already been posted.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/326331-how-obamas-white-house-weaponized-the-media-against
And this thing, too:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2017%2F01%2FWeaponize-meme.jpeg&hash=9c190d9f1dda693d83a106fa76a869ad77c8539e)
-
Looks like the Trump associate FISA warrant leaked now, it was targeting Carter Page
He doesn’t strike one as the sharpest knife in the drawer. If a man could be convicted based on his observed behavior, Page would be in Leavenworth.
He is supposedly the only one (although that wording certainly leaves some wiggle room)
Page is the only American to have had his communications directly targeted with a FISA warrant in 2016 as part of the Russia probe, officials said.
And CNN is throwing some cold water on the Nunes unmasking documents
both Republican and Democratic lawmakers and aides have so far found no evidence that Obama administration officials did anything unusual or illegal, multiple sources in both parties tell CNN.
One congressional intelligence source described the requests made by Rice as "normal and appropriate" for officials who serve in that role to the president.
And another source said there's "absolutely" no smoking gun in the reports, urging the White House to declassify them to make clear there was nothing alarming in the documents.
I would love for the White House to declassify this stuff but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
-
Looks like the Trump associate FISA warrant leaked now, it was targeting Carter PageHe is supposedly the only one (although that wording certainly leaves some wiggle room)
And CNN is throwing some cold water on the Nunes unmasking documents
I would love for the White House to declassify this stuff but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
LOLOLOL. This is hilarious. Trump is using the Democrats tactics right back at them.
Drip, drip, drip says the media. Look at all the collusion that MUST have happened between Trump and RUSSIA! Drip, drip, drip... No, there's no PROOF, but where there's smoke, there's fire!
Drip, drip, drip, says Trump. Look at Obama spying on an opposing presidential candidate! Drip drip drip... screams the media, BUT THERE'S NO PROOF! You're just creating smoke where there isn't any fire and our Boyfriend Obama is as pure as the wind-driven snow!
-
I think it's interesting that Rice went from "I know nothing" to saying there was no political purpose behind her unmasking.
As has been pointed out many times, the White House is not an investigatory agency. What other reason could there be for what she did? Does she think she's a better investigator than the FBI or CIA?
As for Carter Page, he was investigated last September, as he had been in contact with the dreaded Russian ambassador, who seems to talk to everyone in DC all the time. And he worked in the Moscow office of Merril Lynch a decade ago.
Funny that the media that's ignored the Rice story is all over Page.
-
As for Carter Page, he was investigated last September, as he had been in contact with the dreaded Russian ambassador, who seems to talk to everyone in DC all the time. And he worked in the Moscow office of Merril Lynch a decade ago.
On the ambassador issue, of course he talked to everyone in DC.
Russia is a major international player and any single Representative or Senator can get a burr under his saddle and cause issues for his country. (More powerful Senators/Representatives of course can cause greater problems.)
A shrewd statesman would much prefer the first meeting to occur before said Senator or Representative has a reason to contact the Ambassador. So, I'm not the least bit surprised he tries to see as many as possible to make sure their only interactions are not when said Senator or Representative has a problem.