Trump Tower Bugged by BHO?

[Penner]

What?! Did you miss C-Mag's post? (It's just a couple above yours.)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Do you think there was some illegal wrong doing with the wiretapping or I should now say, "wiretapping" of Trump? Becuase if there was a warrant issued then there had to be something that a judge saw evidence that this "wiretapping" was reasonable for them to do during an election year, right?

[Martin Hash]

Do you read anything here or do you just post the MSM narrative. It's okay to have a different pov & opinion, just address other people's too.

[de officiis]

The Justice Department is asking the House Intelligence Committee for more time to respond to a request intended to clear up President Donald Trump’s claim that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower in the run-up to the 2016 election.
...
“This afternoon, the Department of Justice placed calls to representatives of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to ask for additional time to review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine what if any responsive documents may exist,” a Justice Department spokeswoman, Sarah Isgur Flores, said in a statement Monday evening.

A congressional aide said the intelligence panel was seeking information such as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications “that would indicate surveillance had been conducted on Trump or his associates during the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/j ... ing-236011

Sometimes you just have to live with uncertainty.

[clubgop]

What?! Did you miss C-Mag's post? (It's just a couple above yours.)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Do you think there was some illegal wrong doing with the wiretapping or I should now say, "wiretapping" of Trump? Becuase if there was a warrant issued then there had to be something that a judge saw evidence that this "wiretapping" was reasonable for them to do during an election year, right?

Is this the best the left has to offer? No wonder you dont win shit. Marc Levin lays it out pretty well. You want evidence? Its right from the MSM mouth.



If you think there is no evidence and it's all bullshit, well good. You just admitted that the whole OMG Russia! Thing is also bullshit with no evidence. So when you ask for evidence the response must always be the same as before. You first, motherfucker.

[Dand]

What?! Did you miss C-Mag's post? (It's just a couple above yours.)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Do you think there was some illegal wrong doing with the wiretapping or I should now say, "wiretapping" of Trump? Becuase if there was a warrant issued then there had to be something that a judge saw evidence that this "wiretapping" was reasonable for them to do during an election year, right?

Trump said " 'wiretapping' " from the very start in his tweet. The current year is 2017 and there are ways to intercept communications beyond tapping a telephone wire and frankly Trump communicated that from the very start with his tweet.

This "it's not literally a phone wire being tapped" thing is pretty funny tbh and a particularly weak attempt.

[de officiis]

What?! Did you miss C-Mag's post? (It's just a couple above yours.)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Do you think there was some illegal wrong doing with the wiretapping or I should now say, "wiretapping" of Trump? Becuase if there was a warrant issued then there had to be something that a judge saw evidence that this "wiretapping" was reasonable for them to do during an election year, right?

The standard for getting a FISA warrant is not very difficult; see this law review article for further info. The fact that at FISA warrant is issued does not necessarily mean criminal activity has occurred.

The following narrative seems about as reasonable a timeline as I've seen so far.

The following information came from the Media. If what President Trump is saying is ‘untrue’, why did the Media print this information, and where did the Media get this information if not from people leaking information to them from inside the government? This involves the New York Times, National Review, and the Washington Post, among others.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Mark Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/06/r ... /#comments

[TheReal_ND]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

Do you think there was some illegal wrong doing with the wiretapping or I should now say, "wiretapping" of Trump? Becuase if there was a warrant issued then there had to be something that a judge saw evidence that this "wiretapping" was reasonable for them to do during an election year, right?

Trump said " 'wiretapping' " from the very start in his tweet. The current year is 2017 and there are ways to intercept communications beyond tapping a telephone wire and frankly Trump communicated that from the very start with his tweet.

This "it's not literally a phone wire being tapped" thing is pretty funny tbh and a particularly weak attempt.

Well yeah but we all know what he means. It's not like I expect a dude that's nearly as old as my grandpa to know exactly how they are acquiring evidence.

[Speaker to Animals]

Holy fucking shit.

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/ ... -on-trump/

[The Conservative]

Holy fucking shit.

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/ ... -on-trump/

If this is real, and not lip service... this can be damaging...

[Speaker to Animals]

Holy fucking shit.

Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano claimed “three intelligence sources” say President Obama looked to British spy agency GCHQ to obtain transcripts of conversations involving President Donald Trump on “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday.

Napolitano said, “[T]hree intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn’t use the NSA. He didn’t use the CIA. He didn’t use the FBI, and he didn’t use Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What the heck is GCHQ? That’s the initials for the British spying agency. They have 24/7 access to the NSA database. So by simply having two people go to them saying, ‘President Obama needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump, conversations involving president-elect Trump,’ he’s able to get it, and there’s no American fingerprints on this.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/03/ ... -on-trump/

If this is real, and not lip service... this can be damaging...

Uh.. yeah.. He should go to prison for that.