Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Nick Danger on March 20, 2017, 02:15:45 PM
-
...for his fictitious claim that the former president tapped Trump Tower?
We know he won't but should he?
-
...for his fictitious claim that the former president tapped Trump Tower?
We know he won't but should he?
It's not his fault that Alex Jones told him it was true.
-
I'm torn on this one...
I noticed during today's hearing (which was a dog and pony show btw) that both intelligence officials only acknowledged that there was no evidence provided of a "physical" wire tap (which are practically non-existent today); Then they proceeded to not answer any follow up questions from the panel due to it being an "ongoing investigation"...
I would have no problem with an apology, nor would I have an issue with no apology.
Comey did confirm that the Trump campaign was under investigation since July of 2016, and he also REFUSED to deny that he briefed President Obama on calls that Flynn made to Russia.
I'd be with you on Trump apologizing if they came out today and said that there was ZERO evidence of ANY form of surveillance of Trump but they didn't.
This is why we hate politicians; today was a waste of time and energy.
However, I did say I'd eat crow if March 20th rolled around and Trump did not provide any evidence of his claims... I will eat all the crow you guys want to throw at me.
-
I don't recall seeing a denial for anything (and only just now, today) but for a physical tap.
No, that should tell you he doesn't owe an apology for anything ATM. Let them give a full denial for all surveillance, first.
And he'd do well to look really fucking well to show a physical tap, because if they're unable to deny performing other types of surveillance (saying that it was engaged in, let's face it) then it means a physical tap DID take place and that it was done illegally,
-
If it's untrue then yes. But where did the NYT get it's allegation that Obama twice applied for surveillance warrants for Trump and his people?
-
I give Trump 1000x more room to move on this, than the Obama admin.
-
I give Trump 1000x more room to move on this, than the Obama admin.
Senate and House intelligence committees (bipartisan), FBI, National Security Agency and Department of Justice, all said there is no evidence to support the accusation that Obama spied on Trump during last year’s campaign.
-
Senate and House intelligence committees (bipartisan), FBI, National Security Agency and Department of Justice, all said there is no evidence to support the accusation that Obama spied on Trump during last year’s campaign.
I haven't seen a denial. Have you?
-
During a House hearing on Monday, FBI Director James Comey disputed President Trump's claim that his predecessor "wiretapped" him during the presidential campaign.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Neil Cavuto this afternoon and argued that Trump's allegation is true, since there was surveillance on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, which was subsequently leaked to the press.
"Everybody admits that somebody spied on Mike Flynn, and he was part of the Trump campaign," Paul said. "It sounds like what the president said has already been proven to be true."
He said that the media is confused, because they think that wiretapping means placing an "old-fashioned bug" on someone's telephone.
"If you haven't looked recently, most of our telephones don't have wires," Paul said. "'Wiretapping' is a broad term for surveillance."
Cavuto said that surveilling Flynn is one thing, but he pressed Paul if Trump himself was tapped.
"I think 'wiretapping' to Donald Trump probably meant spying. And I think 'Donald Trump' or the 'campaign' also probably meant Mike Flynn," Paul said. "So I think really we're arguing circles around something that most people are admitting."
"Somebody was spying on the Trump campaign and ... Mike Flynn lost his job because of an illegal felony in which somebody released the results of spying on the Trump campaign."
-
Let them give a denial to cover any doubt, and then we'll talk.
-
During a House hearing on Monday, FBI Director James Comey disputed President Trump's claim that his predecessor "wiretapped" him during the presidential campaign.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Neil Cavuto this afternoon and argued that Trump's allegation is true, since there was surveillance on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, which was subsequently leaked to the press.
"Everybody admits that somebody spied on Mike Flynn, and he was part of the Trump campaign," Paul said. "It sounds like what the president said has already been proven to be true."
He said that the media is confused, because they think that wiretapping means placing an "old-fashioned bug" on someone's telephone.
"If you haven't looked recently, most of our telephones don't have wires," Paul said. "'Wiretapping' is a broad term for surveillance."
Cavuto said that surveilling Flynn is one thing, but he pressed Paul if Trump himself was tapped.
"I think 'wiretapping' to Donald Trump probably meant spying. And I think 'Donald Trump' or the 'campaign' also probably meant Mike Flynn," Paul said. "So I think really we're arguing circles around something that most people are admitting."
"Somebody was spying on the Trump campaign and ... Mike Flynn lost his job because of an illegal felony in which somebody released the results of spying on the Trump campaign."
Trust me, "confused" isn't the word we're looking for.
-
Today we learned that Lynch herself had the power to 'unmask' NSA intercepts (ie, the 'wiretapping'), along with many other people in the FBI and WH.
Comey also said that "Obama did not order Trump wiretapped" -- "it is impossible for a president to unilaterally order a wiretap." <----- (Word parsing)
We also learned (officially) that they opened an (espionage?) investigation into Trump in June. So was THAT requested by the WH, or by WJC on the plane with Lnych, or maybe McCabe in the FBI (acting on his 'own' - nothing to do with his promotion or campaign donation to his wife)?
Finally, the fact that there is STILL an open investigation may make it impossible for Trump himself to know the details of the warrants or origin of the case, since he is the subject. Can Comey simply keep it open for 4 years?
-
Something's afoot, me mates.
-
Why don't we wait until all the facts come out.....if that's even possible because of the corrupt secretive Obama administration.
-
...for his fictitious claim that the former president tapped Trump Tower?
We know he won't but should he?
For what? Where did the leaks come from? Comey stonewalled the question. This is faaaaaaaar from over...
-
For what? Where did the leaks come from? Comey stonewalled the question. This is faaaaaaaar from over...
You do know that this is an investigation into this administration's possible links to Russia right?
Comey's opening statement...
"Please don't draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics … We need to make sure we don’t give other people clues as to where we are going. We need to make sure we don't give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don't know. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we are doing it".
-
You do know that this is an investigation into this administration's possible links to Russia right?
Comey's opening statement...
"Please don't draw any conclusions from the fact that I may not be able to comment on certain topics … We need to make sure we don’t give other people clues as to where we are going. We need to make sure we don't give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or don't know. We just cannot do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we are doing it".
Yeah, i know what he said
-
During a House hearing on Monday, FBI Director James Comey disputed President Trump's claim that his predecessor "wiretapped" him during the presidential campaign.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Neil Cavuto this afternoon and argued that Trump's allegation is true, since there was surveillance on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, which was subsequently leaked to the press.
"Everybody admits that somebody spied on Mike Flynn, and he was part of the Trump campaign," Paul said. "It sounds like what the president said has already been proven to be true."
He said that the media is confused, because they think that wiretapping means placing an "old-fashioned bug" on someone's telephone.
"If you haven't looked recently, most of our telephones don't have wires," Paul said. "'Wiretapping' is a broad term for surveillance."
Cavuto said that surveilling Flynn is one thing, but he pressed Paul if Trump himself was tapped.
"I think 'wiretapping' to Donald Trump probably meant spying. And I think 'Donald Trump' or the 'campaign' also probably meant Mike Flynn," Paul said. "So I think really we're arguing circles around something that most people are admitting."
"Somebody was spying on the Trump campaign and ... Mike Flynn lost his job because of an illegal felony in which somebody released the results of spying on the Trump campaign."
This is true. It's obvious with leaks, etc. that there was surveillance. Whether this will be "proven" or followed through with is another question. Let's not forget Hillary. Do we really think that they will take on a former president in today's culture/character of those still in charge (Comey)? I don't.
-
This is true. It's obvious with leaks, etc. that there was surveillance. Whether this will be "proven" or followed through with is another question. Let's not forget Hillary. Do we really think that they will take on a former president in today's culture/character of those still in charge (Comey)? I don't.
Right?! I want to hold out hope that something will come out off all of this, but that's just dumb of me... the people must demand justice, or take it into their own hands.
(http://i.magaimg.net/img/8o2.jpg)
-
Gowdy is The Man! He's an awesome dude!
Just wanted to clarify some things that Mr. Comey has said that are directly contradicted by the Snowden leaks: A FISA Court warrant or clearance is extremely easy for anyone in the intelligence community or high-ranking political person to get provided reasonable proof is given. From Snowden, the movie, we know that one of the characters says that, from what he knows, FISA Court has only denied requests on two occasions (out of probably tens or hundreds of thousands of requests). In the case of Trump, and due to the persistence of the Russian issue and even the attempted intelligence leaks which turned out to be false, ElectoHackGate provided the powers-that-be with that proof. The issue now is: WHEN did the FBI investigation start and who ordered the warrant to investigate Flynn. It's all a timing issue. If it turns out that the investigation started BEFORE the election, then that means the White House is involved. If it didn't, then we can rule out Barack Hussein.
Either way, this does not look good for anyone. That the FBI was waist-deep in an investigation of a potential POTUS candidate is no better or worse than Putin hacking his way into the DNC's emails.
BOTH are an interference of our political process, and BOTH are wrooooooong!
-
Let's take a quick trip down memory lane; 2012, Stratfor E-mails (released by Wikileaks in part of the Global Intelligence Files; more info: https://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html (https://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html))
https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1210665_obama-leak-investigations-internal-use-only-pls-do-not.html (https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/12/1210665_obama-leak-investigations-internal-use-only-pls-do-not.html)
Obama Leak Investigations (internal use only - pls do not forward)
Email-ID 1210665
Date 2010-09-21 21:38:37
From burton@stratfor.com
To secure@stratfor.com
Obama Leak Investigations (internal use only - pls do not forward)
Brennan is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning
information from inside the beltway sources.
Note -- There is specific tasker from the WH to go after anyone printing
materials negative to the Obama agenda (oh my.) Even the FBI is
shocked. The Wonder Boys must be in meltdown mode...
-
July was the month when the big donors, the DNC head honchos, Obama and many others started realizing that The People were changing their minds: There is a confluence of events that I suspect go beyond mere random coincidences. Hillary, out of the blue, started saying that if she were to get elected there would be an illegal alien amnesty within a month of her becoming the POTUS, the media turned VIOLENTLY against DT, and all these rumors about investigations started popping up here and there.
-
July was the month when the big donors, the DNC head honchos, Obama and many others started realizing that The People were changing their minds: There is a confluence of events that I suspect go beyond mere random coincidences. Hillary, out of the blue, started saying that if she were to get elected there would be an illegal alien amnesty within a month of her becoming the POTUS, the media turned VIOLENTLY against DT, and all these rumors about investigations started popping up here and there.
When did Bill Clinton/tarmac meeting occur? June 27.
-
Even Fox News is making an attempt at appearing to have journalistic integrity. Took them long enough.
Fox News has reportedly pulled Andrew Napolitano from the air indefinitely after he made claims that a British intelligence agency had wiretapped Trump Tower.
Fox News host Shepard Smith also denied Friday that his network has information validating Napolitano's remarks, saying the network knows of "no evidence of any kind that the now-President of the United States was surveilled at any time in any way."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324916-fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324916-fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims)
-
Even Fox News is making an attempt at appearing to have journalistic integrity. Took them long enough.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324916-fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/324916-fox-news-pulls-napolitano-after-his-trump-wiretap-claims)
That's their apology.
-
That's their apology.
Apologize for what exactly
-
FOX has been just involved in the Big Info Scam as MSNBC and all the rest.
Yep, it's been true all these years and ONLY NOW might some of you finally catch on.
-
Americans don't apologize to Brits.
It will suffice if Trump just tells them to go fuck themselves
-
Apologize for what exactly
Exactly. Didn't the FBI just come out and indirectly acknowledge that they are investigating Trump?
To me, the legalese being used and their obvious intent to obstruct the sharing of any knowledge behind "there's an investigation going on" is suspect as shit.
ALL intelligence groups in the US are of questionable motives.
-
He accused the former President of a felony ( illegal wire tap).
Plus, he then repeated that it could have been the British Intelligence services .
In fairness to Pres Trump, the man is human and can get pissed .
In the modern , social media age we live anyone can fire off some tweet or post when upset.
Difference is, he's the leader of the free world and his every word is scrutinized.
So, if he just say he bought into a misleading source, and made a mistake .
The apologize to Obama and the Brits, saying he's learning and being President is a humbling job.
Even those that didn't vote for him (like me) would be on his side.
Hey Howard, maybe you didn't bother (I seriously doubt you did) to see the exchange I put up yesterday between Gowdy and Comey. But just in case you missed, here it is.
-
No, I saw it and in fairness , every issue we have 2 sides.
Bottom line is , EVERY official within the intelligence services said Trump has no proof for his claims.
Man up on this one Coach, Trump lied when he said Obama wire tapped him.
Leaks came from somewhere, Howard. Where did they come from and who's lying about it?
-
Leaks came from somewhere, Howard. Where did they come from and who's lying about it?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7cnftHX4AAINnU.jpg)
-
Hey, we don't care who leaked the story to the newspapers. We don't even know how many people within the FBI have the authority to unmask US citizens in classified information. And we are EERILY uninterested in WHO leaked the classified information to the press.
What we DO know is that a conversation was picked up between Dimitry and Nikita by us, I mean the NSA! and that's what led us to Trump, I mean US person # 1! We've sniffed "here and there" since late June and we can't talk about certain things because they may interfere with an investigation I should not be talking about.
Makes all the sense in the world.
Even Gowdy's warning that their actions will put a dark cloud over the POTUS seems to do nothing to these two assholes.
Heck, there's probably someone at the NSA right now collecting information on the bullshit we say here at Getbig... As if!!
-
Trump in the only person responsible for the dark clouds over his administration
-
And they talk about "the culture" within the intelligence communities as if it's a badge of honor... when anyone scratching the fucking surface can quickly see how much collusion, rule-breaking/bending and pseudo-legal shit these hound dogs are up to.
Over 35,000 requests delivered to the FISA Court and only 12 denied. And then Comey has the indecency to talk about "the culture".
Nothing to see here, keep walking.
-
Trump in the only person responsible for the dark clouds over his administration
Look, I do not like some of the things the guy is doing, as with many others who voted for him. However, he is the the President of the United States of America, which means The People put him in power. NO ONE voted to put Comey or any of his crony mother fucking intelligence jerk-off senile old a-hole colleagues in power.
This is the POTUS getting bitched around by an intelligence community THAT would serve the nation A LOT BETTER by concentrating on the real enemies.
-
Even Gowdy's warning that their actions will put a dark cloud over the POTUS seems to do nothing to these two assholes.
Investigation over, we don't want to make this administration look bad.
-
Look, I do not like some of the things the guy is doing, as with many others who voted for him. However, he is the the President of the United States of America, which means The People put him in power. NO ONE voted to put Comey or any of his crony mother fucking intelligence jerk-off senile old a-hole colleagues in power.
This is the POTUS getting bitched around by an intelligence community THAT would serve the nation A LOT BETTER by concentrating on the real enemies.
Comey is investigating potential crimes during and immediately after Trumps campaign (before he took the oath of office)
that is his job
POTUS is not above the law
Additionally Trump makes himself look like an idiot with his baseless claims. That's all on him. He can't even blame that on other people in his campaign team, advisors, etc..
-
Comey is investigating potential crimes during and immediately after Trumps campaign (before he took the oath of office)
Comey isn't investigating SHIT. He is overseeing an investigation, which means he is being fed the 30,000-foot view sound bites. His ignorance of the procedures is also apparent: He can't tell Gowdy how many people have unmasking authority at the FBI. Gowdy is TELLING this guy IN PUBLIC that knowing who could've leaked information is paramount to the investigation and... Comey just sits there like another stuffed suit, devoid of life and full of sound bites, repeating the "we can't talk about that" slogan whenever Gowdy's got him cornered.
POTUS is not above the law
I don't give a flying fuck if Trump is being investigated by the FBI, Aunt Jemima or the Puffy Pink Cloud Contingency. What I DO care about is the timing and the motives.
IFFFFFFFF all of this ends up being a wasted effort, and it has all the makings of another major FBI cock-up, they just dragged the POTUS' face through the mud.
Additionally Trump makes himself look like an idiot with his baseless claims.
Absolutely, I do agree with you on this.
-
IFFFFFFFF all of this ends up being a wasted effort, and it has all the makings of another major FBI cock-up, they just dragged the POTUS' face through the mud.
The investigation wouldn't have even been made public if not for trump.
-
The investigation wouldn't have even been made public if not for trump.
bingo
Comey even said the Trump DOJ gave allowed him to confirm the existence of the investigation
Trump of all people should want to know if people in his employ committed crimes
I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed to discovering if this in fact happened
-
Trump in the only person responsible for the dark clouds over his administration
You're a delusional f**k. He's the "only person" ::)
-
Comey is investigating potential crimes during and immediately after Trumps campaign (before he took the oath of office)
that is his job
POTUS is not above the law
Additionally Trump makes himself look like an idiot with his baseless claims. That's all on him. He can't even blame that on other people in his campaign team, advisors, etc..
Really? Obama, Clinton, Comey, Lynch, et al were above the law even when caught lying to congress. Are you freaking kidding me?????????
-
Comey even said the Trump DOJ gave allowed him to confirm the existence of the investigation
Trump of all people should want to know if people in his employ committed crimes
I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would be opposed to discovering if this in fact happened
Who cares about who uncovered the investigation? It's not about the who, it's about then WHEN and the MOTIVE behind it.
The FBI just tampered with the election process, which carries certain illegalities to it (I'm pretty sure someone at the FBI is going to get fired for this).
-
The FBI just tampered with the election process, which carries certain illegalities to it (I'm pretty sure someone at the FBI is going to get fired for this).
Just to be clear, here you are referring to the events leading up to the election regarding Hillary's email "scandal", right?
-
Just to be clear, here you are referring to the events leading up to the election regarding Hillary's email "scandal", right?
No, I mean the FBI has been investigating Trump since July.
Hillary's emails are an entirely different case.
-
No, I mean the FBI has been investigating Trump since July.
Hillary's emails are an entirely different case.
Comey did not announce they were investigating Trump but he did announce they reopened the Clinton investigation less than two weeks before the election.
-
No, I mean the FBI has been investigating Trump since July.
Hillary's emails are an entirely different case.
Yes, this was my point. Like I said in the other thread, funny how your ability to make distinctions has such a narrow scope. The FBI hasn't been "investigating Trump" since July. His team remained in contact with Russian nationals who are constantly monitored by u.s. gov. The FBI literally interfered with the election process in Trump's favor, yet several months down the line you've got your panties twisted straight up your asshole about illegal election interference because Trump's name is getting dragged through the mud.
-
Comey did not announce they were investigating Trump but he did announce they reopened the Clinton investigation less than two weeks before the election.
And? Where in my commentary did I allege that Comey had announced the Trump investigation (either pre or post-election)?
-
Yes, this was my point. Like I said in the other thread, funny how your ability to make distinctions has such a narrow scope. The FBI hasn't been "investigating Trump" since July. His team remained in contact with Russian nationals who are constantly monitored by u.s. gov. The FBI literally interfered with the election process in Trump's favor, yet several months down the line you've got your panties twisted straight up your asshole about illegal election interference because Trump's name is getting dragged through the mud.
Dude, the FBI has been investigating Trump since July. Don't be stubborn. That his entire campaign team is also under investigation doesn't make my argument a syllogism fallacy, which is what you are implying.
And, yes, the FBI ought to be investigated for HillaryEmailGate too. Comey should've kept his mouth shut until after the election. At least.
-
Dude, the FBI has been investigating Trump since July. Don't be stubborn.
Are you joking here? What's next? "Because I say so?"
That his entire campaign team is also under investigation doesn't make my argument a syllogism fallacy, which is what you are implying.
Yes, it does. The only reason they were monitored is because they put themselves in positions that are ALWAYS monitored by the gov. It's like saying a teacher is unfair to a student because the student is always being punished, but then ignoring that the student is constantly late, talks in class and fails to turn in homework. It's a textbook syllogistic fallacy.
And, yes, the FBI ought to be investigated for HillaryEmailGate too. Comey should've kept his mouth shut until after the election. At least.
And if Hillary was elected, then what? Conduct the investigation 4 or 8 years down the line? Or just ignore it altogether?
-
Are you joking here? What's next? "Because I say so?"
OMFG! https://www.wired.com/2017/03/fbi-director-comey-confirms-investigation-trump-campaigns-russia-ties/.
Yes, it does. The only reason they were monitored is because they put themselves in positions that are ALWAYS monitored by the gov. It's like saying a teacher is unfair to a student because the student is always being punished, but then ignoring that the student is constantly late, talks in class and fails to turn in homework. It's a textbook syllogistic fallacy.
No it doesn't! And no, it's not a fallacy. Your argument is a fallacy. The point you are trying to make makes it a syllogistic fallacy because you are trying to insinuate that the FBI isn't investigating Trump because the FBI is investigating Trump's campaign.
A correct syllogism is: The FBI is investigating the Trump campaign. Trump is part of the Trump campaign. Therefore, Trump is being investigated. Do YOU understand?
And if Hillary was elected, then what? Conduct the investigation 4 or 8 years down the line? Or just ignore it altogether?
I honestly don't care about Hillary one bit. What I was saying was that the FBI should be investigated for making an investigation public during the election process.
-
What does this mean? Just popped up on my phone?
(https://i.redd.it/n55l7bghvzmy.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/jpdgehmgvzmy.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/itq4jpaevzmy.jpg)
AP: GOP lawmaker says President Trump's communications may have been 'monitored' during transition period.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the House intelligence committee says President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection."
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence collections were done legally.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring mostly occurred in November, December and January.
Nunes says he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify those sources.
-
https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/844597669247041537 (https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/status/844597669247041537)
None of the info collected involved Russia? hmmmmmm.... interdasting....
WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the House intelligence committee says President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection."
Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence collections were done legally.
Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring mostly occurred in November, December and January.
Nunes says he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify those sources.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Politico: Nunes: Trump transition members were under surveillance during Obama administration
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366 (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366)
Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November's election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday.
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.
Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned, which he said came from "sources."
-
Libtards....speak on this. Since day one you called Trump a liar. Eat a dick
-
Libtards....speak on this. Since day one you called Trump a liar. Eat a dick
It's EXACTLY what I said a few weeks ago
They were surveilling Russians
No different than if they were suveilling drug dealers and Trumps people were talking to them
Not at all hard to understand but I'm sure Trumptards will find a way to not understand it
-
What does this mean? Just popped up on my phone?
This is the guy who hadn't heard of Carter Page and Roger Stone, right? The guy who the White House asked to speak to the media to debunk Russian ties stories despite the fact that he was on the investigative committee? The same guy who has already publicly stated that he believed this story was coming from the Obama administration in an attempt to undermine Trump, even before Trump's inauguration?
Yeah, he just blew the lid off this thing.
He specifically didn't confirm Trump being surveilled, he specifically didn't confirm any surveillance preceding the election and definitely didn't confirm any surveillance being okayed by Obama. What he did say is that what surveillance did take place was incidental, legal and part of normal foreign intelligence.
Gee, where have we heard this before? ::)
-
Obama was not surveilling U.S. citizens.....until Snowden exposed that lie.
Obama wasn't surveilling Trump and his team from November 2016 - January 2016.....until the NSA exposed that lie.
When the DOJ (Loretta Lynch acting on orders from Obama) changed the way information was shared between the intelligence communities in January 2017 and shit all over the 4th Amendment, not one Lib politician spoke out. But they sure as fuck had a lot to say the last 2 days after Comey proved he is an idiot.
Jesus Christ the Dems are corrupt to the bone.
-
I'm torn on this one...
I noticed during today's hearing (which was a dog and pony show btw) that both intelligence officials only acknowledged that there was no evidence provided of a "physical" wire tap (which are practically non-existent today); Then they proceeded to not answer any follow up questions from the panel due to it being an "ongoing investigation"...
I would have no problem with an apology, nor would I have an issue with no apology.
Comey did confirm that the Trump campaign was under investigation since July of 2016, and he also REFUSED to deny that he briefed President Obama on calls that Flynn made to Russia.
I'd be with you on Trump apologizing if they came out today and said that there was ZERO evidence of ANY form of surveillance of Trump but they didn't.
This is why we hate politicians; today was a waste of time and energy.
However, I did say I'd eat crow if March 20th rolled around and Trump did not provide any evidence of his claims... I will eat all the crow you guys want to throw at me.
They said "there was no evidence" because they don't want to come out and call the sitting president a liar...which is what he is
-
They said "there was no evidence" because they don't want to come out and call the sitting president a liar...which is what he is
Well you better turn on the Clinton News Network, because it is out now that Trump's transition team was spied on from the election to the inauguration
-
It's EXACTLY what I said a few weeks ago
They were surveilling Russians
No different than if they were suveilling drug dealers and Trumps people were talking to them
Not at all hard to understand but I'm sure Trumptards will find a way to not understand it
"communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia."
-
"communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia."
... which means they weren't related to a specific investigation, but rather general foreign intelligence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-chair-says-trumps-personal-communications-may-have-been-picked-up-through-incidental-collection/
Despite the news, he repeated that the president’s claim that President Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower was not true.
“No, no, no. That did not happen. I have said this for many, many weeks,” he said.
“I believe it was all done legally. I think it was all obtained legally. The question is why was it unmasked?” Nunes said, adding that he doesn’t believe it was collected through a criminal investigation.
-
Anyone remember way way back about 3 months ago when Obama expelled 35 russians from the US
You can be damn sure we were monitoring their online and offline communications
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
-
... which means they weren't related to a specific investigation, but rather general foreign intelligence.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-chair-says-trumps-personal-communications-may-have-been-picked-up-through-incidental-collection/
At least we can agree that the Trump campaign was being "wire tapped" now.
-
Anyone remember way way back about 3 months ago when Obama expelled 35 russians from the US
You can be damn sure we were monitoring their online and offline communications
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/29/barack-obama-sanctions-russia-election-hack
election "hack" LOL!
What did they "hack"?
-
At least we can agree that the Trump campaign was being "wire tapped" now.
Really? Because in the post you are quoting is this:
Despite the news, he repeated that the president’s claim that President Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower was not true.
“No, no, no. That did not happen. I have said this for many, many weeks,” he said.
So, even Nunes doesn't agree on that point. ::)
-
Really? Because in the post you are quoting is this:
So, even Nunes doesn't agree on that point. ::)
:D you should get a job with the media; we all know what Trump meant in his tweet, he even put "wire tap" in quotation marks.
REPORTER: “Do you believe the President appropriately used the word 'wiretapping?' Was it used correctly in his tweets, based on the information that you have seen?”
NUNES: “I think the wiretapping, if you use it generally like the President has said, he clearly used it differently than what I think a lot of people took it which was did Obama actually wiretap the Trump Tower, which we know didn’t happen. I think the President has been pretty clear on that.”
REPORTER: “But the physical act of the wiretapping, do you see anything —“
NUNES: “No, and I said that on day two.”
REPORTER: “Can you rule out the possibility that senior Obama Administration officials were involved in this?”
NUNES: “No, I cannot.”
-
??? ??? ???
:D you should get a job with the media; we all know what Trump meant in his tweet, he even put "wire tap" in quotation marks.
REPORTER: “Do you believe the President appropriately used the word 'wiretapping?' Was it used correctly in his tweets, based on the information that you have seen?”
NUNES: “I think the wiretapping, if you use it generally like the President has said, he clearly used it differently than what I think a lot of people took it which was did Obama actually wiretap the Trump Tower, which we know didn’t happen. I think the President has been pretty clear on that.”
REPORTER: “But the physical act of the wiretapping, do you see anything —“
NUNES: “No, and I said that on day two.”
REPORTER: “Can you rule out the possibility that senior Obama Administration officials were involved in this?”
NUNES: “No, I cannot.”
He doesn't say anywhere that any type of "wiretapping" went on.
-
"What I've read has bothered me, and it should bother the President and his team."
-
??? ??? ???
He doesn't say anywhere that any type of "wiretapping" went on.
But in the same breath he said "some level of surveillance activity" took place. It doesn't take a genius to know what Trump meant when he tweeted "wire tapped" in quotes (240 character limit)
Watch the video I posted of the second press conference.
-
"What I've read has bothered me, and it should bother the President and his team."
And, once again, he doesn't say anything about trump being wiretapped or surveilled by the Obama administration. ::) He says exactly what several of us have said over the last few weeks: when trump's team has been caught up in surveillance, it is because they were in contact with people who are regularly surveilled by us gov.
-
But in the same breath he said "some level of surveillance activity" took place. It doesn't take a genius to know what Trump meant when he tweeted "wire tapped" in quotes (240 character limit)
Watch the video I posted of the second press conference.
Why is there any level of ambiguity over what he meant? Why has he refused to elaborate? Why have his spokespeople attempted to walk back what he meant? Forget providing evidence! Why has he neglected to just clarify what he meant in a normal way? It's been weeks. Twitter may have a 240 character limit, but he is not obligated to only communicate via twitter. ::)
-
Why is there any level of ambiguity over what he meant. Why has he refused to elaborate? Why have his spokespeople attempted to walk back what he meant? Forget providing evidence! Why has he neglected just clarify what he meant? Twitter may have a 240 character limit, but he is not obligated to only communicate via twitter. ::)
It is his chosen medium... He gave the task to proving worthy evidence to Congress.
At least the evidence is coming to light now. Sounds like a good Samaritan turned over the relevant documents.
This will be fun to watch play out.
-
It is his chosen medium... He gave the task to proving worthy evidence to Congress.
At least the evidence is coming to light now. Sounds like a good Samaritan turned over the relevant documents.
This will be fun to watch play out.
So, in other words, you're hoping that an obvious lie was vague enough so that it can be misinterpreted to barely seem true somewhere down the road IF you grasp at enough straws. Trumptards stay winnin'! ;)
-
So, in other words, you're hoping that an obvious lie was vague enough so that it can be misinterpreted to barely seem true somewhere down the road IF you grasp at enough straws. Trumptards stay winnin'! ;)
I just think Trump didn't know how to spell "surveillance" at 4:30 am. :D
No, I've believed him since day one. I said I'd eat crow if evidence didn't show up by the 20th... Just 2 days late.
-
So, in other words, you're hoping that an obvious lie was vague enough so that it can be misinterpreted to barely seem true somewhere down the road IF you grasp at enough straws. Trumptards stay winnin'! ;)
Exactly what happened with "You look at what's happening last night in Sweden ... Sweden ... who would believe this?"
-
"What I've read has bothered me, and it should bother the President and his team."
apparently he circumvented the House investigation and brought this right to Trump
other members of the committee have not even seen this info
Nunes basically just destroyed his own credibility
-
apparently he circumvented the House investigation and brought this right to Trump
other members of the committee have not even seen this info
Nunes basically just destroyed his own credibility
Who was the individual who ordered this investigation? Trump. This is Trump's investigation.
Nunes was given the info, and spoke with, the NSA (whom have been cooperating) ---> briefed the Speaker of the House ---> briefed President Trump
What law did Nunes break by doing this?
-
Nunes basically just destroyed his own credibility
And let's be clear: he barely had any to begin with. I said this in an earlier post, but this was the guy who the White House called on to push back against stories on ties between Russia and trump's team. The whole press conference was calculated to send trumptard fanboys into a frenzy while actually saying nothing and providing no details.
-
Well, we were listening to him, but it's okay because we were also listening to other people. So in that sense we weren't really listening to him. Or something like that.
Trump doesn't owe an apology to anyone. And it's no wonder they couldn't deny.
-
So, in other words, you're hoping that an obvious lie was vague enough so that it can be misinterpreted to barely seem true somewhere down the road IF you grasp at enough straws. Trumptards stay winnin'! ;)
If you watched, Nunes was clear that the unmasking of the names was problematic and was going to be investigated along with a number of other issues. Your red herring argument about a tweet is stupid. Nunes was clear the Trump transition team was surveilled from Election Day to the Inauguration, that is indisputable. When asked if what transpired was legally he only answered that of the few dozen documents he read, it appeared that it may have been done legally!
Only liberal retards continue to hang their hat on the word wiretap, exactly like the idiots did with the "popular vote". Fucking brain dead lemmings.
-
If you watched, Nunes was clear that the unmasking of the names was problematic and was going to be investigated along with a number of other issues. Your red herring argument about a tweet is stupid. Nunes was clear the Trump transition team was surveilled from Election Day to the Inauguration, that is indisputable. When asked if what transpired was legally he only answered that of the few dozen documents he read, it appeared that it may have been done legally!
Only liberal retards continue to hang their hat on the word wiretap, exactly like the idiots did with the "popular vote". Fucking brain dead lemmings.
Unfortunately, you can't hotlink twitter here, but here are trump's tweets regarding wiretapping:
#1
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
#2
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
#3
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!
#4
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-president-trumps-unsubstantiated-wiretapping-claims/story?id=46198888
NOTHING Nunes said today supports ANY of this. He DIDN'T confirm Obama ordered the surveillance. He didn't say that trump was being surveilled. He didn't say that the incidental surveillance that trump's team inserted themselves in occurred BEFORE the election. Like I said in previous post...
-
Unfortunately, you can't hotlink twitter here, but here are trump's tweets regarding wiretapping:
#1
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
#2
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
#3
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!
#4
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-president-trumps-unsubstantiated-wiretapping-claims/story?id=46198888
NOTHING Nunes said today supports ANY of this. He DIDN'T confirm Obama ordered the surveillance. He didn't say that trump was being surveilled. He didn't say that the incidental surveillance that trump's team inserted themselves in occurred BEFORE the election. Like I said in previous post...
So Trump should still apologize?
-
So Trump should still apologize?
Well, he did lie.
-
Unfortunately, you can't hotlink twitter here, but here are trump's tweets regarding wiretapping:
#1
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!
#2
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!
#3
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!
#4
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-president-trumps-unsubstantiated-wiretapping-claims/story?id=46198888
NOTHING Nunes said today supports ANY of this. He DIDN'T confirm Obama ordered the surveillance. He didn't say that trump was being surveilled. He didn't say that the incidental surveillance that trump's team inserted themselves in occurred BEFORE the election. Like I said in previous post...
He also said he understood how these orders were given to maintain plausible deniability. But back to the point at hand, the targeted surveillance and unmasking of U.S. citizens by the Obama administration
That was definitely clear and conveyed today.
Trump will drain the DC cesspool of these lying Libs one at a time. All you have posted is again, the red herring argument away from the illegal activity. What you're not mentioning is that no collusion between Russia and the trump team exists.....none. If the NSA, DOJ, DHS, and/or FBI was in on this it was directly UNDER THE ORDER OF BARACK OBAMA.
-
All you have posted is again, the red herring argument away from the illegal activity. What you're not mentioning is that no collusion between Russia and the trump team exists.....none. If the NSA, DOJ, DHS, and/or FBI was in on this it was directly UNDER THE ORDER OF BARACK OBAMA.
It's a red herring to say that none of what Trump said or implied was confirmed by Nunes today? ::) It's a red herring to say that Nunes didn't even acknowledge any illegal activity took place? ::)
-
It's a red herring to say that none of what Trump said or implied was confirmed by Nunes today? ::) It's a red herring to say that Nunes didn't even acknowledge any illegal activity took place? ::)
Nunes said just the opposite.
He confirmed that the trump team was surveilled by obama
He did not confirm that the activities were legal, he was very definitive in his response to that question.
Fail.....try again
-
Nunes said just the opposite.
He confirmed that the trump team was surveilled by obama
He did not confirm that the activities were legal, he was very definitive in his response to that question.
Fail.....try again
that's not what he said at all but I'm not surprised that's what you believe he said
-
Nunes said just the opposite.
He confirmed that the trump team was surveilled by obama
He did not confirm that the activities were legal, he was very definitive in his response to that question.
Fail.....try again
??? ??? ???
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-chair-says-trumps-personal-communications-may-have-been-picked-up-through-incidental-collection/
Despite the news, he repeated that the president’s claim that President Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower was not true.
“No, no, no. That did not happen. I have said this for many, many weeks,” he said.
“I believe it was all done legally. I think it was all obtained legally. The question is why was it unmasked?” Nunes said, adding that he doesn’t believe it was collected through a criminal investigation.
-
??? ??? ???
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/intel-chair-says-trumps-personal-communications-may-have-been-picked-up-through-incidental-collection/
Despite the news, he repeated that the president’s claim that President Obama ordered a wiretapping of Trump Tower was not true.
“No, no, no. That did not happen. I have said this for many, many weeks,” he said.
“I believe it was all done legally. I think it was all obtained legally. The question is why was it unmasked?” Nunes said, adding that he doesn’t believe it was collected through a criminal investigation.
Nunes said the documents he read "appeared to have been obtained legally". He did not say all the surveillance on the Trump transition team was gathered legally. He was very clear with how he answered the question - which was asked repeatedly.
And I will repeat it again for the retards that are hung up on the word semantics of "ordered" and "wiretap", Nunes was very clear this information was collected by the previous administration and he said appeared to be collected incidentally.
He obviously knows more and went straight to the President and past liberal bootlickers like Schiff.
-
Nunes said the documents he read "appeared to have been obtained legally". He did not say all the surveillance on the Trump transition team was gathered legally. He was very clear with how he answered the question - which was asked repeatedly.
No, he's talking about the surveillance itself. Otherwise this statement in it's entirety doesn't make sense:
“I believe it was all done legally. I think it was all obtained legally. The question is why was it unmasked?”
Why would the question be why it was unmasked if he was talking about documents he read?
-
No, he's talking about the surveillance itself. Otherwise this statement in it's entirety doesn't make sense:
Why would the question be why it was unmasked if he was talking about documents he read?
Jesus Christ, are you really that stupid?
Because the unmasking was against the law, and the investigation is to find who ordered the unmasking (hence, who broke the law). The bullshit about "incidental" surveillance is just that.....bullshit. If innocent Americans were caught up in surveillance "incidentally, then there would have been no need for the lawbreaker(s) to unmask and then disseminate the names and activities of the Trump transition team.
Even you have to be able to see this stinks to high heaven?
-
Because the unmasking was against the law, and the investigation is to find who ordered the unmasking (hence, who broke the law). The bullshit about "incidental" surveillance is just that.....bullshit.
Here is the press conference. Right at 4:45, a reporter asks if he is concerned that the surveillance was conducted illegally and Nunes says that he believes it was all conducted legally. There is no debate here about what he meant. ::)
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14685/house-intelligence-chairman-obama-intelligence-ben-shapiro
-
Here is the press conference. Right at 4:45, a reporter asks if he is concerned that the surveillance was conducted illegally and Nunes says that he believes it was all conducted legally. There is no debate here about what he meant. ::)
Nunes, himself a Trump transition member, said a “source” had shown him evidence that members of the Trump transition team had been unmasked — and that their identities had been revealed in U.S. intelligence reports. Nunes had previously raised questions about the unmasking of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, whose communications with Russia’s ambassador were intercepted by the U.S. government and whose identity was leaked to the news media.
Nunes suggested this unmasking might have been done for political reasons, saying the evidence he had seen had been widely disseminated across the intelligence community and had "little or no apparent intelligence value." He added that he was trying to get more information by Friday from the FBI, CIA and NSA.
“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored,” the California Republican told reporters. “It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the president-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.” He said the information he had seen was not related to the FBI’s Russia investigation.
-
None of that contradicts what I said or supports what you said.
-
None of that contradicts what I said or supports what you said.
::)
Keep fighting the good fight genius!
-
Here is the press conference. Right at 4:45, a reporter asks if he is concerned that the surveillance was conducted illegally and Nunes says that he believes it was all conducted legally. There is no debate here about what he meant. ::)
You do know legally implies a court order was issued. Which has been denied by just about everyone trying to ridicule Trump. Looking forward to see what comes out of all this.
I have no doubt that Trump was surveilled and that Obama was involved. Remember the NSA surveillance that Snowden brought to light?
The Obama regime forged Obama's birth certificate so you think they would not stoop to tapping into Trump's communication? LMAO!
-
Let's step back a bit and put all this information in perspective: Late spring/early summer of last year is when the pollsters started noticing a distorsion in the poll data. By the time Trump came out of the RNC he was well ahead and still the big media conglomerates were calling for Hillary being ahead. At the same time, Obama, no doubt reacting to the poll data, started getting a lot more involved in Hillary's campaign, to the point that by October he was a de facto Hillary employee and barely tending to his presidential duties.
I would've loved to have been able to hear what these two tweety baids were discussing. IMO, I see Obama desperate enough to have pulled some strings and try something a-legal.
By the by, I love FBI logic: We did not kill him with a knife = we did not kill him. Cannot make this up.
-
You do know legally implies a court order was issued. Which has been denied by just about everyone trying to ridicule Trump. Looking forward to see what comes out of all this.
No, it doesn't. He specifically called the surveillance incidental collection gathered through foreign intelligence. Nothing- NOT ONE THING- he said at that press conference confirms or supports trump's tweets. People who want to believe (such as yourself) are twisting themselves into knots trying to connect non-existent dots. Trump said he had evidence of surveillance ordered by Obama. He is president of the United States. He could easily gather that information. He could easily elaborate on what he believes that information is. He has refused to do either for nearly a month. He was lying and Nunes didn't confirm shit yesterday.
-
No, it doesn't. He specifically called the surveillance incidental collection gathered through foreign intelligence. Nothing- NOT ONE THING- he said at that press conference confirms or supports trump's tweets. People who want to believe (such as yourself) are twisting themselves into knots trying to connect non-existent dots. Trump said he had evidence of surveillance ordered by Obama. He is president of the United States. He could easily gather that information. He could easily elaborate on what he believes that information is. He has refused to do either for nearly a month. He was lying and Nunes didn't confirm shit yesterday.
Ooooops...
Trump must HATE when he is right so fucking often!
-
Nunes Backs Down From Assertion Trump Was Monitored
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151
Rep. Devin Nunes told reporters Friday he can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were captured in the surveillance that has become a source of controversy since Nunes made it public in two news conferences this week.
Langer asserted that Nunes did not explicitly say Trump was spied on when he briefed reporters Wednesday that he was "very concerned," that "the intelligence community incidentally collected information about American citizens involved in the Trump transition."
As for Trump's assertion that Obama wiretapped him, Nunes repeated Friday what he has said previously, telling reporters, "That didn't happen."
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Nunes Backs Down From Assertion Trump Was Monitored
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-backs-down-assertion-trump-was-monitored-n738151
Rep. Devin Nunes told reporters Friday he can't be sure whether conversations among Trump or his aides were captured in the surveillance that has become a source of controversy since Nunes made it public in two news conferences this week.
Langer asserted that Nunes did not explicitly say Trump was spied on when he briefed reporters Wednesday that he was "very concerned," that "the intelligence community incidentally collected information about American citizens involved in the Trump transition."
As for Trump's assertion that Obama wiretapped him, Nunes repeated Friday what he has said previously, telling reporters, "That didn't happen."
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Just another attempt to take the heat off of Trump. Did he ever have any information?
It's now apparent that Nunes can't be impartial.