The wiretap tweet IS true (update)
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 11, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 18449
PAGE 16 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
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.
Lots of words - playing dodge-em?
Regarding the points in my April 20 post, ae you still denying the truth? If so, which particular point in the progression of illegal actions are you claiming didn't happen when Obama wiretapped Trump?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Look it up. All of our relevant intel agencies said Obama didn't order a wiretap of Trump. Legally he can't do that. 
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
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.
Lots of words - playing dodge-em?
Regarding the points in my April 20 post, ae you still denying the truth? If so, which particular point in the progression of illegal actions are you claiming didn't happen when Obama wiretapped Trump?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
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.
So are you denying that Obama wiretapped Trump and his campaign? Or are you agreeing that it is obvious that it certainly did happen?
Neither... Both... Pick one.
I'm sure that Trump and his campaign were "wiretapped". I'm just saying that Obama had nothing to do with it, because his input wasn't required and it was likely above his pay grade. We can thank the Bush administration and the Patriot Act for that.
All of us at any time are being recorded. The only difference between us and Trump are we are nobodies and nobody gives a shit about what we're saying. Try running for President yourself one day and watch Wolf Blitzer show a drunk-dial to an ex-girlfriend at 3:00A.M. 20 years ago to the American public.
There is no privacy anymore. If you're plugged in the information is out there. Unless Trump and his team were speaking in code on burner cell phones, every relevant conversation was recorded and listened to 100 times by now. Follow the money... if bribes were made, they've already found the paper trail.
So, that's the deal. They have EVERYTHING they need if they wanted to prove that anything nefarious was going on. I'm just not sure that "they" want to do it.
I'm a big boy, and I can admit I made a bad choice if they show damning evidence that there was collaboration with Russia. String him up by the balls and make an example of him if he committed treason. Just don't expect me to watch Rachel Maddow and all the journo-idiots and their three ring circus and get my daily fill of their opinion pieces and bullshit they're spoon feeding everybody.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because .... there were thousands of potential terrorists that he was tracking???
President Obama's team sought NSA intel on thousands of Americans during the 2016 election
Quote:None of these people were surveilled with a warrant, and none of them have been shown to have done anything wrong. This is s clear violation of a plain reading of the Fourth Amendment.
During his final year in office, President Obama's team significantly expanded efforts to search National Security Agency intercepts for information about Americans, distributing thousands of intelligence reports across government with the unredacted names of U.S. residents during the midst of a divisive 2016 presidential election.
Quote:AHEM!
The data, made available this week by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, provides the clearest evidence to date of how information accidentally
Quote:Broke the Fourth Amendment
collected by the NSA overseas about Americans was subsequently searched and disseminated after President Obama loosened privacy protections
Quote:Bullshit. NOT the first year such data was kept. Just the first year they had to admit to it.
to make such sharing easier in 2011 in the name of national security. A court affirmed his order.
The revelations are particularly sensitive since the NSA is legally forbidden from directly spying on Americans and its authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreigners is up for renewal in Congress later this year. And it comes as lawmakers investigate President Trump's own claims that his privacy was violated by his predecessor during the 2016 election.
In all, government officials conducted 30,355 searches in 2016 seeking information about Americans in NSA intercept metadata, which include telephone numbers and email addresses. The activity amounted to a 27.5 percent increase over the prior year and more than triple the 9,500 such searches that occurred in 2013, the first year such data was kept.
Quote:Here's the difference between "metadata" and "content". If there is evidence in plain sight, it's not considered to need a warrant. Just like the address in the outside of an envelope is considered "plain sight", the "addresses" of emails and other electronic information was analogized by the courts to be "plain sight" (I disagree, but that's another story). OTOH, opening up a letter and reading the CONTENTS would require a warrant. Which, in thousands of cases, didn't happen under Obama.
The government in 2016 also scoured the actual contents of NSA intercepted calls and emails for 5,288 Americans, an increase of 13 percent over the prior year and a massive spike from the 198 names searched in 2013.
Quote:The CIA was caught snooping on the Senate Intelligence Committee a while back. Now the NSA has been caught snooping for political purposes as well. Who elected these assholes, anyway? Oh, that's right- nobody.
The searches ultimately resulted in 3,134 NSA intelligence reports with unredacted U.S. names being distributed across government in 2016, and another 3,354 reports in 2015. About half the time, U.S. identities were unredacted in the original reports while the other half were unmasked after the fact by special request of Obama administration officials.
Among those whose names were unmasked in 2016 or early 2017 were campaign or transition associates of President Trump as well as members of Congress and their staffers, according to sources with direct knowledge.
Quote:More warrantless snooping, by the FBI.
The data kept by ODNI is missing some information from one of the largest consumers of NSA intelligence, the FBI, and officials acknowledge the numbers are likely much higher when the FBI’s activity is added.
Quote:
"There is no doubt that there was a spike in the requests to search for Americans in the NSA database,” a U.S. official famiNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NSA stops one abuse, but many remain
The National Security Agency has decided to halt a controversial surveillance program, but this was just the tip of an iceberg of government abuses of privacy and due process.
The NSA said last week that it will no longer engage in warrantless spying on Americans’ digital communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target, referred to in the intelligence community as “about” communications. The agency had claimed the authority to engage in such surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows it to target non-U.S. citizens or residents believed to be outside the country, although Americans’ communications are oftentimes swept up as well.
“NSA will no longer collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target,” the agency announced in a statement. “Instead, NSA will limit such collection to internet communications that are sent directly to or from a foreign target.”
“Even though NSA does not have the ability at this time to stop collecting ‘about’ information without losing some other important data, the Agency will stop the practice to reduce the chance that it would acquire communications of U.S. persons or others who are not in direct contact with a foreign intelligence target,” it continued.
It is a significant departure from previous assurances that the program was vital to national security, though many have forcefully disputed that claim. Its effectiveness has always been difficult to gauge, however, due to the lack of information the NSA has provided about it.
The agency’s decision is certainly welcome, though we must make the perhaps generous assumption that it will do — or not do, in this case — what it says it will, and that it will not simply change its mind in the future. Our enthusiasm is also tempered by the realization that this is an agency, along with various other government intelligence agencies, that is built on deception and has repeatedly lied about its spying activities and violations of Americans’ constitutional rights.
We are reminded of the public testimony of then-National Intelligence Director James Clapper at a March 2013 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. At one point, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Clapper plainly, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper then lied to his face, and the faces of all Americans, saying, “No, sir,” and then, “Not wittingly.”
Within a matter of months, news stories based on information from the Edward Snowden leaks would reveal the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata and internet communications.
Then there is the matter of the “backdoor search loophole,” by which the FBI or other agencies may search NSA databases for information about Americans collected under Section 702 without having to go through all that pesky business of obtaining a warrant. The loophole is sure to be a bone of contention during congressional debate over the reauthorization of Section 702, which is scheduled to expire at the end of the year.
Given the government’s repeated abuses of Americans’ privacy through its snooping activities, those looking to reauthorize Section 702 have some serious questions to answer about how many Americans have been swept up in this supposed foreign surveillance, and how useful this intelligence actually is.
The Fourth Amendment is quite clear: Government searches require a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause and describing the specific “place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” New technology may make our communications quicker and more convenient — as well as more easily recorded and stored — but it does not alter that fundamental principle.
http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/06/nsa-stops-one-abuse-but-many-rema
in-2/
-----------
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
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.
So are you denying that Obama wiretapped Trump and his campaign? Or are you agreeing that it is obvious that it certainly did happen?
Neither... Both... Pick one.
I'm sure that Trump and his campaign were "wiretapped". I'm just saying that Obama had nothing to do with it, because his input wasn't required and it was likely above his pay grade.
I can understand you are in denial. But have you read the post I made on 20 April? Obama did direct the illegal and treasonous actions and activities (Treason as defined in the Espionage Act), and his minions did perform his bidding, all violating the laws as well. So which do you admit, which of the specific actions I outlined do you agree were committed? Or which do you deny ever happened, specifically?
Quote:
We can thank the Bush administration and the Patriot Act for that.
All of us at any time are being recorded. The only difference between us and Trump are we are nobodies and nobody gives a shit about what we're saying. Try running for President yourself one day and watch Wolf Blitzer show a drunk-dial to an ex-girlfriend at 3:00A.M. 20 years ago to the American public.
That would be illegal, as I specified - and only Obama has committed this crime.
Quote:
There is no privacy anymore. If you're plugged in the information is out there. Unless Trump and his team were speaking in code on burner cell phones, every relevant conversation was recorded and listened to 100 times by now. Follow the money... if bribes were made, they've already found the paper trail.
So, that's the deal. They have EVERYTHING they need if they wanted to prove that anything nefarious was going on. I'm just not sure that "they" want to do it.
I'm a big boy, and I can admit I made a bad choice if they show damning evidence that there was collaboration with Russia. String him up by the balls and make an example of him if he committed treason. Just don't expect me to watch Rachel Maddow and all the journo-idiots and their three ring circus and get my daily fill of their opinion pieces and bullshit they're spoon feeding everybody.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I can understand you are in denial. But have you read the post I made on 20 April? Obama did direct the illegal and treasonous actions and activities (Treason as defined in the Espionage Act), and his minions did perform his bidding, all violating the laws as well. So which do you admit, which of the specific actions I outlined do you agree were committed? Or which do you deny ever happened, specifically?
Why would I be in denial JSF? I'm no Obama fan, and I've never hid that fact. Would he have done it? Sure. He just didn't need to do it is all I'm saying. GWB installed a corrupt system that Obama benefited from. Now Trump is going to benefit from it as well.
I don't agree or deny any of your specific actions that you outlined. I agree that Trump was spied on. I don't think that Obama had anything to do with it. Or... maybe I should rephrase that.... Because of the system in place, you or anybody else are NEVER going to be able to find any evidence directly connecting him to it.
Quote:
That would be illegal, as I specified - and only Obama has committed this crime.
Would it? Who went to jail when the Access Hollywood tape on Trump came out? They can do whatever the hell they want to do now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That would be illegal, as I specified - and only Obama has committed this crime.
Would it? Who went to jail when the Access Hollywood tape on Trump came out? They can do whatever the hell they want to do now.
Are you claiming that Obama's Executive Branch Administration, or any other Federal agency, leaked the Access Hollywood tape?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Please tell me you don't believe that's all that happened!
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Are you claiming that Obama's Executive Branch Administration, or any other Federal agency, leaked the Access Hollywood tape?
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 avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
That would be illegal, as I specified - and only Obama has committed this crime.
Would it? Who went to jail when the Access Hollywood tape on Trump came out? They can do whatever the hell they want to do now.
Are you claiming that Obama's Executive Branch Administration, or any other Federal agency, leaked the Access Hollywood tape?
Nope. Your reply was to me saying that if you were to run for President, Wolf Blitzer would be showing a recorded cell phone conversation you had 20 years ago when you drunk dialed your ex-girlfriend at 3AM. (Obviously, that was just something thrown out there in place of (whatever dirt somebody has on you here).
Doesn't matter where it comes from. It will get out there if you were to try to run for office or became high profile enough in any meaningful way. Trump's been Prez for a while now and nobody has investigated where that leak came from. My guess is nobody ever will. At this point it would be a terrible PR move for Trump to investigate it and bring "pussy grabbing" back into the forefront of discussion.
My point is that just because something is illegal doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen or that somebody is going to be punished for it.
Trump might have earned a lot of the bad things people have said about him, but you have to hand it to him that he brilliantly dodged that bullet. That tape would have buried 99% of the people that were in his shoes. Not only didn't it bury him, but Trump had a rather strong female voter turnout in the end as well, even against what would have been the first Female President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME