The wiretap tweet IS true (update)
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 18449
PAGE 13 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What happened?
All of the deniers are suddenly mum? Mute? Admitting they have been guilty all along? What?
Good for Mark. Go get em buddy. Lots of investigations going on. Kind of exciting isn't it? Hey did anyone notice the Republican Senator from Utah is not running for reelection? I'll give you a hint as to why. He is on the Senate intelligence committee and he knows he will be having to investigate Trump on one charge after another. He knows that would be a career killer. He is leaving to ride out the storm and will be back with the weather clears.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not only a lame attempt at deflection, but swing and a miss.
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What happened?
All of the deniers are suddenly mum? Mute? Admitting they have been guilty all along? What?
Good for Mark. Go get em buddy. Lots of investigations going on. Kind of exciting isn't it? Hey did anyone notice the Republican Senator from Utah is not running for reelection? I'll give you a hint as to why. He is on the Senate intelligence committee and he knows he will be having to investigate Trump on one charge after another. He knows that would be a career killer. He is leaving to ride out the storm and will be back with the weather clears.
So your silence on the specifics posted above should have us infer that you finally admit that your were wrong, Trump was right all along, and Obama was the greatest crook to ever reside in the White House, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to say a belated thanks for the information. It might go further without the 'libtard' name-calling, but I understand the frustration about people who're unable to deal with facts.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This post from 27 March may not be the most recent post in this thread from SGG, and I do not mean to imply whether or not the poster has gained enlightenment since this post. But I quote it as example of the tone of some of the posts in this thread.Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!
SGG
It appears some detractors in this thread are up-to-date on their FACTS Vaccine Booster shots, and seem incapable (or at the minimum, unwilling) of comprehending what the contributors of this thread are providing in terms of facts.
So perhaps we can iron out a few details in the framework, and then address which specific items the Libtards and other Democrats are in feverish denial about.
It looks like most of these illegal acts are covered under 50 U.S.C. Sec 1809 and 18 U.S.C. Sec 798, and provide both criminal sanctions as well as civil liability. Also 50 U.S. Code Sec 1813.
1. Obamabots target Trump and his campaign people for wiretapping, but dance and jump around the legalese terms of the law by claiming that they are "officially" targeting only foreign subjects who are most likely to be in phone conversations with the real targets, the Trump people. Only Libtards and other Democrats claim this is "normal" or "regular" or "common" practice, policy, or procedure. Practiced by every President all the way back to Benjamin Franklin's first term.
By avoiding the intent and spirit of the law while dancing around the letter of the law, they violated the spirit and intent of the law. At this point Libtards will start arguing what the definition of the word "is" is.
2. Obamabots intentionally violate US 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter I. B. IV. 1813. By refusing to mask the identities of "incidentally collected" American Citizen subjects of no National Security interest. This is illegal, fer every surveillance and for every person whose privacy is violated.
3. Illegal dissemination of the information to other Obamabots. See my March 22 post (the 49th post) of this thread for part of this.
4. Conspiracy to leak Classified information to non-authorized persons (political hacks), for the purpose of leaking the Classified information to non-authorized persons without Classified Clearance. This would include BimbObamabot Evelyn Farkas bragging about the Obamabot Army Conspiring to disseminate the Classified information (which she was not even authorized to have possession of - no "Need-To-Know" for her, a political Campaign Director for Hilliary, and no position whatsoever in the National Security arena) for the specific purpose of leaking the Classified data to the media (see my post on March 29 in this thread - the 56th post).
5. The illegal leaking of the Classified information, illegally collected against Private American Citizens, to non-authorized persons. Authorized people for recieving Classified are required to have valid Security Clearance as well as Need-To-Know (meaning the Classified information is pertinent to their work in the National Security arena).
6. The leaking of Classified information to the media, for distribution to the masses, without authorization from competent authorities to release Classified information.
So, which of these specific and particular illegal acts are the Libtards and other Democrats trying to claim they are not guilty of? Or are you agreeing that Obama is guilty of all of them?
Care to try addressing the facts, again?
Or do you shoot nothing but blanks?
Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an av
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This might be an update, or add-on, not sure where it fits in the narrative.
Susan Rice was apparently the person requesting Trump people be unmasked. The Democraps on the Intel Committee were all-fired upset that their big secret was exposed, and they loudly pretended to demand they be allowed to see the Susan Rice documents where she asked that the Trump people be unmasked.
Since the time that that document has been available for them to review, only 2 - Shiff (D-CA) and Himes (D-CT) have read it. The other 7 Democrap members of the Committee have all curiously been extremely un-curious about it, and have not availed themselves of the opportunity to view it.
Why bother when they all knew all along that their party was committing the crimes?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's become clear (to me) is that there is an awful lot of "incidental" surveillance going on ...
... that under the guise of collecting intelligence on "foreign" targets, Americans with any sort of contact with ANY foreigner can be swept up under CIA/ NSA guidelines. It didn't matter if it was Trump at Mira Lago or Paul Stone talking to Guccifer 2.0 (after-the-fact) ... or your or I communicating with MAGONSDAUGHTER or BRENDA ... any foreign contact can be used as an excuse to monitor an American individual, since warrants aren't needed to surveil foreigners.
I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.
But as usual, we only find out what the CIA/ NSA (and our other spooks) are doing AFTER they've been caught. Just like Obama was revealed by Snowden allowing the NSA to surveil Americans universally (*You DID know that, didn't you?*)
Quote:
In June 2013, reports from a cache of top secret documents leaked by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its international partners had created a global system of surveillance that was responsible for the mass collection of information on American and foreign citizens. Obama initially defended NSA mass surveillance programs when they were first leaked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance
I found a much more interesting source here
Obama-era Surveillance Timeline
https://sharylattkisson.com/obama-era-surveillance-timeline/
With the allegation that Trump Tower was "wiretapped" comes the whole sordid story of the ubiquity of our internal surveillance ... and a promise by the NSA not to do it again!
Quote:
NSA concedes violating surveillance limits and pledges curbs on US email collection
Amid an unexpected fight over US surveillance powers from congressional Republicans, the National Security Agency has agreed to curb its highly controversial collection of Americans’ emails that discuss foreign intelligence targets, although how comprehensive that stoppage is remains unclear.
According to a US official directly familiar with the decision, the NSA has agreed to cease so-called “about” surveillance under a critical 2008 legal authority, known as section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa).
Yet the NSA has other authorities available to it for collecting substantial amounts of the same sort of American communications, including a Ronald Reagan-era executive order, known as 12333. The NSA has not indicated whether or not the “about” collection will cease wholesale, or merely migrate to a different legal authority.
Though the NSA continues to defend the legality of the surveillance it is curbing, it conceded on Friday that the decision follows an internal review that determined it violated constraints agreed to with a secret surveillance court. It called those violations “inadvertent”.
The US surveillance juggernaut has assured intelligence officials that it will limit its vast interception of US communications that transit the internet, known as “upstream” collection, under section 702 to those messages sent from or received by foreign intelligence targets.
It portrayed the decision, first reported by the New York Times, as an optional measure to protect Americans’ privacy, while not conceding a key point of its critics: that such “about” collection violated Americans’ constitutional rights to privacy.
Though the NSA continues to insist “about” collection is legal, the intelligence agency has pledged to delete the “vast majority of its upstream internet data”, it said in a statement.
“The changes in policy followed an in-house review of Section 702 activities in which NSA discovered several inadvertent compliance lapses”, the agency said, which it reported to Congress and the foreign intelligence surveillance court.
It is far from the first time the NSA has conceded that its vast surveillance powers under section 702, a sNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.- SIGNY
Actually, I assumed that from way back, so when I did notice this latest mention it was barely a blip, "well duh." Did you not already know this? There are a lot of bad hombres out there with really bad intentions. Do you think they deserve their privacy? I really don't think my conversations with MAGONS gets marked very high. That's your paranoia talking. Flynn's discussions with the Russians? That's another matter. YOU, presumably a US citizen, should also really want to know what they were about.- G
That's what WARRANTS are for, G. The 4th Amendment ... maybe you heard of it?
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If there is (plain sight) evidence of wrongdoing, the court issues a warrant to allow a search and seizure of more evidence. According to our Constitution, the government isn't supposed to be able to randomly seize evidence from anybody/ everybody "just because".
If I were THUGR, I would accuse you of trying to destroy one of our democratic institutions ... our Constitution.
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You used a word that's alien to 'G' - evidence.
If there is evidence of wrongdoing
Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is one of the reasons to post here... to hear ideas from other people, even if it's things you've already thought about for years but didn't put the puzzle pieces together.
Of course Obama didn't authorize a wire tap. He didn't need to. All of our phone calls are recorded and stored already... they just need a reason to listen to them. I don't even think it needs to be a good reason. I'd imagine it's along the same lines as the reason you would "need" medicinal marijuana.
That being said, they already have all of the conversations that Trump and all of his cronies have had with anybody going back probably as far as the Access Hollywood tape. If there was collaboration with Russia, show the proof please.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh look, a report on the extent of the (ILLEGAL) surveillance of ordinary (non-suspect) Americans, from that bastion of conspiracy theories: Reuters
Quote:
NSA collected Americans' phone records despite law change: report
By Mark Hosenball | WASHINGTON
The U.S. National Security Agency collected more than 151 million records of Americans' phone calls last year, even after Congress limited its ability to collect bulk phone records, according to an annual report issued on Tuesday by the top U.S. intelligence officer.
The report from the office of Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats was the first measure of the effects of the 2015 USA Freedom Act, which limited the NSA to collecting phone records and contacts of people U.S. and allied intelligence agencies suspect may have ties to terrorism.
It found that the NSA collected the 151 million records even though it had warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court to spy on only 42 terrorism suspects in 2016 in addition to a handful identified the previous year.
The NSA has been gathering a vast quantity of telephone "metadata," records of callers' and recipients' phone numbers and the times and durations of the calls - but not their content - since the September 11, 2001, attacks.
The report came as Congress faced a decision on whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits the NSA to collect foreign intelligence information on non-U.S. persons outside the United States, and is scheduled to expire at the end of this year.
Privacy advocates have argued that Section 702 permits the NSA to spy on Internet and telephone communications of Americans without warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that foreign intelligence could be used for domestic law enforcement purposes in a way that evades traditional legal requirements.
The report said that on [at least] one occasion in 2016, the FBI obtained information about an American in response to a search of Section 702 data intended to produce evidence of a crime not related to foreign intelligence.
The report did not address how frequently the FBI obtained information about Americans while investigating a foreign intelligence matter, however.
On Friday, the NSA said it had stopped a form of surveillance that allowed it to collect the digital communications of Americans who mentioned a foreign intelligence target in their messages without a warrant.
TRUMP'S ALLEGATIONS
The new report also came amid allegations, recently repeated by U.S. President Donald Trump, that former President Barack Obama ordered warrantless surveillance of his communications and that former national security adviser Susan Rice asked the NSA to unmask the names of U.S. persons caught in the surveillance.
Both Republican and Democratic members of the congressional intelligence committees have said that so far they have found no evidence to support either allegation.
Officials on Tuesday argued that the 151 million records collected last year were tiny compared with the number collected under procedures that were stopped after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the surveillance program in 2013.
Because the 151 million would include multiple calls made to or from the same phone numbers, the number of people whose records were collected also would be much smaller, the officials said. They said they had no breakdown of how many individuals' phone records were among those collected.
In all, according to the report, US. officials unmasked the names of fewer Americans in NSA eavesdropping reports in 2016 than they did the previous year, the top U.S. intelligence officer reported on Tuesday.
The report said the names of 1,934 "U.S. persons" were "unmasked" last year in response to specific requests, compared with 2,232 in 2015, but it did not identify who requested the names or on what grounds.
Officials saidNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
I'm surprised that nobody else seemed to notice. Ok, not surprised. Disappointed.- SIGNY
Actually, I assumed that from way back, so when I did notice this latest mention it was barely a blip, "well duh." Did you not already know this? There are a lot of bad hombres out there with really bad intentions. Do you think they deserve their privacy? I really don't think my conversations with MAGONS gets marked very high. That's your paranoia talking. Flynn's discussions with the Russians? That's another matter. YOU, presumably a US citizen, should also really want to know what they were about.- G
That's what WARRANTS are for, G. The 4th Amendment ... maybe you heard of it?Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If there is (plain sight) evidence of wrongdoing, the court issues a warrant to allow a search and seizure of more evidence. According to our Constitution, the government isn't supposed to be able to randomly seize evidence from anybody/ everybody "just because".
If I were THUGR, I would accuse you of trying to destroy one of our democratic institutions ... our Constitution.
Wrong, if there is evidence of wrongdoing in plain sight SIG. The authorities don't need a warrant. If there is probable cause, or they wish to see what will turn up if they wait to act, then a warrant is sought. The problem here is that Trumps claims of being wiretapped have been debunked by all the relevant intelligence agencies. You keep acting as though you know best, when you can't even rap your head around that.
If any of the massive amounts of collected information is to be securitized, a warrant is requested. Until then it is located in a massive data base. Imagine a google type search. Certain things like phone numbers of foreign agents, or contacts with some foreign countries triggers interest. Were talking billions of conversations SIG. It's collected, not reviewed. And not all requests for a warrant are granted. It's a very thorough process you have to go through to get one. You should have such protections in Russia comrade.
You keep posting shit about current events, and how our laws work, that shows you are being intentionally misleading, or that you are clueless. Either way, you are wrong.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME