The wiretap tweet IS true (update)

From the BBC on the surveillance

Quote:

---

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

What I want to know is how all of these "secrets" out there are always leaked by "sources".

That's all we hear anymore, from either side. No facts. No evidence. Just a bunch of opinion pieces and random unnamed sources.

The way I look at it? If a source isn't going to be named, that's because A) the source was made up and the story is bullshit, or B) the source is lying.

Sure, there is always the chance that C) the source could get in a lot of trouble and/or die if they were known to have talked, but I'm done giving the benefit of the doubt. Not when every goddamned story cites anonymous sources these days.

No wonder we're always fighting with each other. We're not presented with facts and then discussing our different views on these facts. We can't even agree with what is and what is not fact anymore.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Obama can't order a tap btw.

---

I don't think the claim holds any water, but let's stop being cute about "Obama can't order it". Sure, he couldn't on paper. Don't pretend you're so naive to believe that he couldn't get it done if he wanted to just because he's your guy. Trump technically couldn't either, but I'm sure he could too.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I know what you're saying - Obama winks and things get done, right? Sorry, I doubt judges would risk their careers over that. As the Wired article says: "that would be a huge scandal." Trump needs to put up or shut up, and if it were found out to be true I wouldn't defend Obama for a second.- GSTRING

---

Uh huh.

FROM THE LAWNEWZ

Quote:

---

So what happened?

.... The interesting thing is that this isn’t a new development. In fact, several outlets including Mother Jones, The Guardian, The National Review, and Heat Street

---

and the BBC

Quote:

---

have been reporting on this alleged activity over the last couple of months.

Here is the best summary we could find of the Obama administration’s efforts to wiretap Trump associates. From a January 11, 2017 Guardian article:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation

---

http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/trump-asks-if-its-legal-for-obama-adm
in-to-wiretap-him-here-is-the-answer/

COULD Obama get an order to surveil the Trump Tower server? OF COURSE HE COULD. According to the same source

Quote:

---

“Well, putting aside there is no indication Trump himself was the target of the FISA warrant (it appears to have been aimed at four of his associates), yes, it CAN be legally done,” Bradley Moss, an attorney and national security expert explained to LawNewz.com.

---

GSTRING, you're an ignoramus. Or maybe an ignoranus.


-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

What SIG doesn't realize, is her link to the BBC lays out a clear case as to why there would be a need to tap Trumps phones. This is more self inflected wounds with SIG picking at the scabs.

As for posting anything from Breitbart, Breitbart News has published a number of falsehoods and conspiracy theories, as well as intentionally misleading stories. Which is exactly how SIG posts here. I followed the link to the BBC. Reading it made me feel as though our intelligence agencies would be remiss, if they didn't look into to this using every tool available.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So, is Trump nuts???

---

He's acting like a guilty man. He's paranoid for a reason.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiretap-trump-tower-not-obama-worry/

Obama can't order a tap btw.
“If he has evidence that he was wiretapped without a proper FISA order being sought, that would be a huge scandal, and he should produce whatever evidence he’s got,” says Sanchez. “It’s a pretty serious claim, and it’s striking he would make it without anything solid to back it up.”
The Justice Department sought a FISA warrant in June to intercept communications from two Russian banks suspected of facilitating donations to the Trump campaign. The judge reportedly rejected the warrant, as well as a narrower version sought in July. A new judge granted the order in mid-October, according to the BBC."
“While the order would have been requested by some part of the executive branch, Obama can’t order anything. Nor can Trump,” says former NSA lawyer April Doss, who stresses that her comments are based only on public information. “The order has to come from the court, and the court operates independently.”

Trump is probably just a little nuts and a lot guilty.

---

---------------------

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Obama can't order a tap btw.

---

I don't think the claim holds any water, but let's stop being cute about "Obama can't order it". Sure, he couldn't on paper. Don't pretend you're so naive to believe that he couldn't get it done if he wanted to just because he's your guy. Trump technically couldn't either, but I'm sure he could too.

---

I know what you're saying - Obama winks and things get done, right? Sorry, I doubt judges would risk their careers over that. As the Wired article says: "that would be a huge scandal." Trump needs to put up or shut up, and if it were found out to be true I wouldn't defend Obama for a second. Truth Jack, not sides, not boxes - forget those constraints, they just hold your brain down. If you ever want us to get out of this Dem v. Rep sh*t pile we need more of that.

Funny, Trump can't get his first executive order to stick, so no, I don't think Trump could get that done.

---

How would it be a huge scandal? He was the crown prince shit of everything. Obama got less MSM scrutiny in 8 years than Trump has gotten in 6 weeks.

But that's beside the point. They could put that through so many channels that nobody would even be able to tie it to the President. LOL... actually the more I think of it, the likelihood that it happened goes up. Chances are that Obama actually had nothing to do with it though. Somebody tells Trump that Obama did it, and he can't keep his busy fingers off Twitter and says that for everyone to ridicule and focus on... meanwhile the taps actually did happen and nobody is even looking at that anymore because of this new fiasco.


I'm allowed to theorize over bullshit too G. That's all the MSM and you guys have been doing since Trump has been in office. I haven't seen any proof of anything. Just a lot of opinion pieces, and unnamed sources.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

What SIG doesn't realize, is her link to the BBC lays out a clear case as to why there would be a need to tap Trumps phones. This is more self inflected wounds with SIG picking at the scabs. - THUGR

---

THUGR, if you had read the article for comprehension, instead of for talking points, or if you had been following the actions of FISA court on your own, you would have realized that the FIAS Court almost never turns down a request for surveillance. As the article said

Quote:

---

“The problem with the President’s question is that the standards for FISA are so low and easily satisfied (with little judicial review) that it is difficult to establish any illegality under the law,” wrote George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley.

---

As of 2015,

Quote:

---

Here's how many US surveillance requests were rejected in 2015
The FISA Court has only rejected 12 requests in more than three decades.

Since 1979 through to 2015, the last round of reporting figures, the court has approved 38,365 warrants but only rejected a dozen. That's a rejection rate of 0.031 percent.

---

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret
-government-demand-for-data/
That the first two requests for surveillance were REJECTED shows just how weak the case was to being with, and it was reoslved in the usual way by the requesting authorities: judge-shopping.

Quote:

---

He's acting like a guilty man. He's paranoid for a reason.

---

Gee, why would that be???



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Hrmmm...Substantial

---

alleged, investigated, unproven

Quote:

---

financial ties

---

such as? Big hotels? Large contributions?

Quote:

---

with Russia that compromise his ability to be an effective president that ultimately cost him his job maybe? It's just a guess.

---

Or maybe its the continuous succession of anonymous allegations which so far are nothing more than fake news?



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hey G... I'm hoping for the best here. Who knows how this is all going to turn out?

All I have to say is that I'm still happier having a president who possibly, allegedly, still has yet to be proven to have ties with Russia than one who was deeeeeep in the pockets of Middle Eastern interests.

This isn't an old James Bond flick. Given the last 2 presidencies and the atrocities done by a much scarier enemy, I don't think that being on friendly terms with Russia is a bad thing. We've still got an ocean separating us from most of this. It's right in their back yard.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm posting the Breitbart version in full because it is supposedly THE source of Trump's tweet, however, what was published here was also sourced elsewhere, including in the BBC.

Here is the BBC on the surveillance

Quote:

---

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427


So, is Trump nuts???

No, I don't think so. I think this is full-scale war between the CIA/ deep state and the Trump Administration. Last time this happened, that President wound up dead. I know our gentle friends from outside the USA can't imagine that this could possibly be going on, but yanno... when a world empire is at stake oligarchs will order some crazy shit be done.

The BREITBART VERSION

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, 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

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME