Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: War Eagle!!! on March 06, 2017, 11:49:05 AM
-
Saw this today. Interesting stuff. Will be interested to see how all this is going to go down.
Not looking good for the dems. I know...Levin, right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah...
But why did Obama make two FISA request to monitor Trump? That can't be good.
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.
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.
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.
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.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.
January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier†compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.
January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.†The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.
January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,†though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.
February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.
February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials†in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence†of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.
March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier†of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve†intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve†it really means “disseminateâ€: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators†and perhaps the media as well.
In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.
-
Saw this today. Interesting stuff. Will be interested to see how all this is going to go down.
Not looking good for the dems. I know...Levin, right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah...
But why did Obama make two FISA request to monitor Trump? That can't be good.
It should terrify you.
Should also tell you that the middle America side of the aisle is much smarter than the lunatic left.
-
Saw this today. Interesting stuff. Will be interested to see how all this is going to go down.
Not looking good for the dems. I know...Levin, right wing conspiracy, blah blah blah...
But why did Obama make two FISA request to monitor Trump? That can't be good.
What's the source?
Because if it's Levin, then it's pretty much accepted as garbage.
Any link to, or substantiation for, any of that?
-
What's the source?
Because if it's Levin, then it's pretty much accepted as garbage.
Any link to, or substantiation for, any of that?
Accepted by whom? You and Joy Behar?
Better do your research. This guy isn't "garbage."
He's just compiling info from your beloved New York Times and other pinko yellow commie rags.
-
Accepted by whom? You and Joy Behar?
Better do your research. This guy isn't "garbage."
He's just compiling info from your beloved New York Times and other pinko yellow commie rags.
Garbage was too strong. I think you can generously call him "biased."
-
Garbage was too strong. I think you can generously call him "biased."
What are you disputing? That there were FISA requests?
-
I'm just wondering what they found on the recordings. Trump's ignorance insults the office and the American people.
-
What are you disputing? That there were FISA requests?
There wasn't a link anywhere in your post and your source was unclear. Just trying to see the evidence behind the block quote.
-
There wasn't a link anywhere in your post and your source was unclear. Just trying to see the evidence behind the block quote.
The source is Breitbart quoting Levin.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
It has been debunked. As I have demonstrated, I'm highly skeptical of WaPo's "Fact Checks", but this one really does fail the bullshit test.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/05/trumps-evidence-for-obama-wiretap-claims-relies-on-sketchy-anonymously-sourced-reports/?utm_term=.ba752e669ee6
Trump’s ‘evidence’ for Obama wiretap claims relies on sketchy, anonymously sourced reports
By Glenn Kessler March 5
Trump accuses Obama of ordering Trump Tower wiretap Play Video2:28
President Trump accused former president Barack Obama of wiretapping his calls in Trump Tower. Here's a timeline of their relationship since inauguration. (Video: Thomas Johnson, Claritza Jimenez, Monica Akhtar/Photo: Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
“How low has President Obama gone to tapp [sic] my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!â€
— President Trump, tweet, March 4, 2017
“Reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations ahead of the 2016 election are very troubling.â€
— White House press secretary Sean Spicer, statement, March 5
President Trump’s explosive allegation that former president Barack Obama wiretapped him is based on — what?
That has been the question ever since Trump sent provocative early-morning tweets over the weekend, because he and his staff have provided no evidence.
At The Fact Checker, we require the accuser to provide the evidence for a dramatic claim. We asked Saturday and received no answer.
However, in calling for a congressional investigation of apparent Russian meddling in the election to also look into Trump’s allegation, White House press secretary Sean Spicer on March 5 referred to “reports concerning potentially politically motivated investigations.†That suggests the tweets were based on media reports, not information the president might have received from inside the government.
Our colleague Robert Costa has reported that White House aides have internally circulated an article on Breitbart titled “Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama’s ‘Silent Coup’ vs. Trump.†Breitbart is a right-leaning news organization that is a rather unreliable source of information. Often the material that is published is derivative and twisted in misleading ways.
However, a White House spokesman told The Fact Checker that the White House instead is relying on reports “from BBC, Heat Street, New York Times, Fox News, among others.†He provided a list of five articles.
Let’s explore the sources of the president’s claim.
The Facts
We are going to start with the Breitbart article, which lists two key data points that appear to relate to the president’s claim:
June 2016: FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.
October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.
But these data points are not based on reporting by Breitbart. Instead, Breitbart links to a report that appeared in Heat Street, another right-leaning news organization: “EXCLUSIVE: FBI ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia.†It was written by Louise Mensch, a former Tory member of the British Parliament and an independent journalist. This is one of the news reports identified by the White House, and it’s the most important one.
This article claimed: “Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.â€
Mensch claimed that the warrant was related to an FBI investigation of a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to two Russian banks — an investigation that apparently went nowhere. Her article makes no mention of a wiretap.
“The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server [in Trump Tower] and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates,†Mensch wrote.
(Note: While Heat Street says the server in question is in Trump Tower, other reports have suggested the server actually was located in Philadelphia. That’s because the Trump domain was controlled by a company that outsourced emails to another company called Listrak, which actually operates the physical server in a data center in Philadelphia.)
The Washington Post for months has sought to confirm this report of a FISA warrant related to the Trump campaign but has been unable to do so. Presumably, other major news organizations have tried to do so as well. So one has to take this claim with a huge dose of skepticism. Indeed, the New York Times reported before the election that the FBI “ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts†with the Russian banks.
Interestingly, as far as we can tell, only two other reports have touched on this FISA claim, and they also have British connections. One is a report in the BBC from January, which the White House cited as a source. The BBC reported:
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.
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 offense.
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.
Finally, there was a report in the Guardian, which reported on the supposed June FISA request but could not confirm the October one. (The White House did not cite the Guardian.)
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.
Separately, McClatchy, in a January article mostly focused on whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided Trump’s campaign, reported one source had confirmed “the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia.†This echoed the BBC report, but is much different than the Heat Street account. (The White House also did not mention this report as a source for Trump’s claim.)
The White House provided three other sources. Two, a National Review article and a Fox News interview, are simply derivative of the Heat Street article, with no independent confirmation. (The National Review article first speculated about wiretaps, and was cited by Breitbart.) The third is a New York Times report that intelligence agencies “are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions†as part of a probe of possible links between Russian officials and Trump campaign aides. (We recall that the president has previously deemed Times reporting on this matter as “fake news.â€)
So what do we have here?
Only one article, with British roots, reported that a FISA court order was granted in October to examine possible activity between two Russian banks and a computer server in the Trump Tower. This claim has not been confirmed by U.S. news organizations. Moreover, no article says that Obama requested the order or that it resulted in the tapping of Trump’s phone lines. The server, in fact, may not have even been in Trump Tower.
(Our colleague Ellen Nakashima reported how difficult it is to obtain a wiretap of a U.S. citizen as part of a foreign intelligence investigation.)
Moreover, the articles do not support the White House’s claim that these were “potentially politically motivated investigations†led by Obama. The articles all suggest that the FISA requests — if they happened — were done by the intelligence agencies and the FBI. The BBC says the investigation was prompted by a tip from a Baltic country about possible criminal activity:
Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was — allegedly — a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.
It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence task force was created.
We should also note that a spokesman for Obama has denied the allegation that the former president ordered a wiretap on Trump.
Moreover, James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence under Obama, told NBC’s “Meet the Press†on Sunday that in the national intelligence activity he oversaw, “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, as a candidate or against his campaign.†Clapper said as intelligence director he would have known about a “FISA court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it.â€
Asked again whether there was a FISA court order to monitor Trump Tower, Clapper replied: “Not to my knowledge.â€
Update: FBI Director James B. Comey asked the Justice Department to issue a statement refuting President Trump’s claim that Obama ordered a wiretap of Trump’s phones before the election, U.S. officials told news organizations.
Update, March 6: Mensch, the author of the Heat Street article cited by the White House, tweeted she never reported there was wiretap and instead pointed the finger at Breitbart (which as we noted above, appears not to have done independent reporting).
@LouiseMensch
I see a lot of panic from Trumpers now I'm pointing out Paul Wood, Julian Borger and I did not report any 'Wiretap' https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/ …
@LouiseMensch
BBC, @McClatchyDC, @JulianBorger and I, none of us report wire at Trump Tower, just warrant. If there IS one, who leaked to @BreitbartNews?
The Pinocchio Test
While the Trump White House cited five news reports to justify its request for a congressional investigation, only two actually are relevant.
It’s certainly ironic that the Trump White House — which has heavily criticized articles relying on anonymous sources — now relies on articles based on anonymous sources that cite information that has not been confirmed by any U.S. news organization. It would be amusing if it were not so sad.
After all, Clapper, who presumably would be aware of a FISA court order, has issued an on-the-record denial.
Even if these media reports are accepted as accurate, neither back up Trump’s claims that Obama ordered the tapping of his phone calls. Moreover, they also do not back up the administration’s revised claim of politically motivated investigations.
We’re still waiting for the evidence. In the meantime, Trump earns Four Pinocchios.
Four Pinocchios
-
Accepted by whom? You and Joy Behar?
Better do your research. This guy isn't "garbage."
He's just compiling info from your beloved New York Times and other pinko yellow commie rags.
Demonstrably false.
Link to those "pinko yellow commie rags".
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/838769010044993537
-
Demonstrably false.
Link to those "pinko yellow commie rags".
https://twitter.com/GlennKesslerWP/status/838769010044993537
Wrong.
Here's something from the guy who was in Less Than Zero.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump?utm_content=buffer07b53&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
It has been debunked.
:taunt: :rofl:
Not in the least. Read that pandering shit. "If it was true we probably would have already reported on it. Since we didn't? It must not be true...."
When are you going to learn? Trump is way smarter than you think.
-
:taunt: :rofl:
Not in the least. Read that pandering shit. "If it was true we probably would have already reported on it. Since we didn't? It must not be true...."
When are you going to learn? Trump is way smarter than you think.
I'm going to level with you and say the claim itself has not been debunked, but the Breitbart article and its "sources" have.
It hasn't been proven one way or another at this point, and the burden of proof is on Trump, especially given the incendiary nature of the allegation.
-
Wrong.
Here's something from the guy who was in Less Than Zero.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump?utm_content=buffer07b53&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
You think National Review is "pinko libruhl" bullshit?
:facepalm:
-
I'm going to level with you and say the claim itself has not been debunked, but the Breitbart article and its "sources" have.
It hasn't been proven one way or another at this point, and the burden of proof is on Trump, especially given the incendiary nature of the allegation.
My complaint is with the treatment.
Obama says something it must be true regardless of whether the facts dispute it.
President Trump says something and he must be lying unless he proves otherwise.
FWIW, Brietbart didn't report the FISA stuff. That came from other sources. If the Obama administration did that it was at his direction and is the real election tampering.
-
1 the claim itself has not been debunked
2 Breitbart article and its "sources" have
3 It hasn't been proven one way or another at this point, and the burden of proof is on Trump, especially given the incendiary nature of the allegation.
Correct - which is the main Crux of it all
Halfway correct - McCarthy and Levin are hardly garbage. Some of the others are sketchy. Levin was chief of staff for an AG (Ed Meese) and a constitutional scholar. He knows a thing or two. He is not trump fan by any means if you'll read his articles during the election cycle.
Correct - and I think this is where they are heading towards.
-
You think National Review is "pinko libruhl" bullshit?
:facepalm:
You mis hear me.
I think this sort of goes against what the others said. So it was counter to your pinko commie yellow rags.
-
"No one, that I know of, was in contact with Russia during my campaign."
Except his Campaign Manager, National Security Advisor, Attorney General and likely a few others...NO ONE.
-
My Twitter was hacked would be the excuse I'd use.
-
My Twitter was hacked would be the excuse I'd use.
You should use the "my X account was hacked by a dumbass" excuse now.
-
"No one, that I know of, was in contact with Russia during my campaign."
Except his Campaign Manager, National Security Advisor, Attorney General and likely a few others...NO ONE.
During the actual campaign those people were in other roles where they would have been talking with Russia. Especially sessions (as a sitting senator and on a senate Armed services committee). There is a difference in talking to them as a campaign rep and talking to them in their current capacity. I know this was exhausted in the other thread.
-
During the actual campaign those people were in other roles where they would have been talking with Russia. Especially sessions (as a sitting senator and on a senate Armed services committee). There is a difference in talking to them as a campaign rep and talking to them in their current capacity. I know this was exhausted in the other thread.
Yes. But like all of their failing mantras, they still think if you scream it long enough, the people will believe you.
The rational "people" have learned that if you just wait a bit, the real truth will come out.
-
My complaint is with the treatment.
Obama says something it must be true regardless of whether the facts dispute it.
President Trump says something and he must be lying unless he proves otherwise.
Getting back to this. Trump hasn't earned...and has, frankly, squandered any of it he had...the benefit of the doubt because of his constant stream of hyperbolic half-truths and outright lies.
His statements are viewed with a jaundiced eye because of his actions/statements not because of his person.
-
Getting back to this. Trump hasn't earned...and has, frankly, squandered any of it he had...the benefit of the doubt because of his constant stream of hyperbolic half-truths and outright lies.
His statements are viewed with a jaundiced eye because of his actions/statements not because of his person.
Horseshit.
Lemme guess. He said he had a huge crowd for the inauguration and a big electoral win. He said those things with bluster and bravado.
So you're jaundiced.
Poor you.
Obama was never truthful about anything, including his past and his history of associations. He just lied in a smoother tone.
-
Obama was never truthful about anything, including his past and his history of associations. He just lied in a smoother tone.
And got much of nothing done!
I'm watching to see what he does, not what he says.
-
Horseshit.
Lemme guess. He said he had a huge crowd for the inauguration and a big electoral win. He said those things with bluster and bravado.
So you're jaundiced.
Poor you.
Obama was never truthful about anything, including his past and his history of associations. He just lied in a smoother tone.
It's mainly when he knowingly lies to try to make himself look better.
Like today, he posted on Twitter that Obama released 122 Guantanamo prisoners and that they're back fighting alongside terrorist groups (nevermind the fact that Bush released 113 of those prisoners and Obama released only 9). He needs a fact checking nanny with him at all times.
-
It's mainly when he knowingly lies to try to make himself look better.
Like today, he posted on Twitter that Obama released 122 Guantanamo prisoners and that they're back fighting alongside terrorist groups (nevermind the fact that Bush released 113 of those prisoners and Obama released only 9). He needs a fact checking nanny with him at all times.
Wrong
-
Wrong
You're going to eventually get tired of whiffing.
Intelligence Community report on re-engaged detainees shows that Bush allowed nearly all of those releases.
According to the report on re-engagement through July 2016, 122 of the 693 former detainees who were transferred out of Gitmo went back to terrorism. Bush oversaw the release of 532 detainees, and 113 of them — more than one-fifth — were confirmed to have re-engaged, according to the report.
Meanwhile, Obama released 161 detainees, and only nine were confirmed to have returned to terrorism.
-
Wrong
He posts on Twitter things that are not verified. His Guantanamo tweet where he blamed Obama for the release of 122 criminals came after watching Fox & Friends. Fox stated correctly that 122 of the released prisoners had re-engaged in terrorism. They didn't say anything about the Obama administration...Trump did. He is not reliable to tell the truth. The more he continues to telling half truths or outright lies, the more the American public will stop believing in him.
FOX & friends ✔ @foxandfriends
Former Gitmo detainee killed by a U.S. airstrike in Yemen; at least 122 former Gitmo detainees have re-engaged in terrorism
5:33 AM - 7 Mar 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!
6:04 AM - 7 Mar 2017
-
He posts on Twitter things that are not verified. His Guantanamo tweet where he blamed Obama for the release of 122 criminals came after watching Fox & Friends. Fox stated correctly that 122 of the released prisoners had re-engaged in terrorism. They didn't say anything about the Obama administration...Trump did. He is not reliable to tell the truth. The more he continues to telling half truths or outright lies, the more the American public will stop believing in him.
FOX & friends ✔ @foxandfriends
Former Gitmo detainee killed by a U.S. airstrike in Yemen; at least 122 former Gitmo detainees have re-engaged in terrorism
5:33 AM - 7 Mar 2017
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
122 vicious prisoners, released by the Obama Administration from Gitmo, have returned to the battlefield. Just another terrible decision!
6:04 AM - 7 Mar 2017
Just curious - why did you quote the same post twice in two seperate posts? Why not just one? #saveserverspace
-
During the actual campaign those people were in other roles where they would have been talking with Russia. Especially sessions (as a sitting senator and on a senate Armed services committee). There is a difference in talking to them as a campaign rep and talking to them in their current capacity. I know this was exhausted in the other thread.
I also forgot to mention that Trump did, in fact, have contact with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak moments before making his foreign policy speech in April. “I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia — from a position of strength only — is possible, absolutely possible,â€
So, why does he continue to lie?
-
I also forgot to mention that Trump did, in fact, have contact with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak moments before making his foreign policy speech in April. “I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia — from a position of strength only — is possible, absolutely possible,â€
So, why does he continue to lie?
Your ass really is your most intelligent attribute. And yet simultaneously dumb.
-
Your ass really is your most intelligent attribute. And yet simultaneously dumb.
You see, I post facts, you resort to insults. So with that being said...shut the fuck up, moron.
His lying will catch up to him.
-
You see, I post facts, you resort to insults. So with that being said...shut the fudge up, moron.
His lying will catch up to him.
You're talking about Obama, right?
-
You're talking about Obama, right?
If you like your dr and your plan, you can keep it. I promise.
-
President Trump just fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Saturday, just days after he was asked to investigate the president for receiving payments from foreign countries and violating the U.S. Constitution...the same US attorney that was told by then President-elect Trump that he'd be staying on, along with Jeff Sessions.
Nothing to see here though...
-
President Trump just fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Saturday, just days after he was asked to investigate the president for receiving payments from foreign countries and violating the U.S. Constitution...the same US attorney that was told by then President-elect Trump that he'd be staying on, along with Jeff Sessions.
Nothing to see here though...
Wrong
-
President Trump just fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Saturday, just days after he was asked to investigate the president for receiving payments from foreign countries and violating the U.S. Constitution...the same US attorney that was told by then President-elect Trump that he'd be staying on, along with Jeff Sessions.
Nothing to see here though...
They asked all Obama attorneys to resign. This guy said no, and got fired. I think he wanted the attention like the acting AG, and will use this to springboard into politics. I honestly don't see the big deal.
And someone please correct me, but would an attorney "investigate the president?" Thought that the LE community did the investigating, and would present their findings to the attorney, who would then take it to the grand jury? Or have I watched too much Hollywood?
-
They asked all Obama attorneys to resign. This guy said no, and got fired. I think he wanted the attention like the acting AG, and will use this to springboard into politics. I honestly don't see the big deal.
And someone please correct me, but would an attorney "investigate the president?" Thought that the LE community did the investigating, and would present their findings to the attorney, who would then take it to the grand jury? Or have I watched too much Hollywood?
Easier to just say: "Wrong"
-
They asked all Obama attorneys to resign. This guy said no, and got fired. I think he wanted the attention like the acting AG, and will use this to springboard into politics. I honestly don't see the big deal.
And someone please correct me, but would an attorney "investigate the president?" Thought that the LE community did the investigating, and would present their findings to the attorney, who would then take it to the grand jury? Or have I watched too much Hollywood?
Like I stated earlier, he was previously asked by Trump and Sessions to stay. He was the main "swamp drainer" and he was respected by Republicans and Democrats. He was starting to investigate many of Trump's businesses in New York. So, no, not wrong Kaos, trying doing research before posting.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2012/1101120213_600.jpg)
-
Like I stated earlier, he was previously asked by Trump and Sessions to stay. He was the main "swamp drainer" and he was respected by Republicans and Democrats. He was starting to investigate many of Trump's businesses in New York. So, no, not wrong Kaos, trying doing research before posting.
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2012/1101120213_600.jpg)
Regardless of what he said about Trump/Sessions saying he would stay on, I've not read anything in an official capacity on what Trump actually told him. Maybe Trump wanted him to stay on a month or two, and he thought that meant permanently. Maybe Trump said stay on for a month, and let me think about it. I don't know, and I imagine, no one you read really knows either. So many other legitimate things to worry about, I just feel this is really nothing.
Anyway, I'm glad he is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats. You know who else is? Neil Gorsuch.
-
President Trump just fired U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara on Saturday, just days after he was asked to investigate the president for receiving payments from foreign countries and violating the U.S. Constitution...the same US attorney that was told by then President-elect Trump that he'd be staying on, along with Jeff Sessions.
Nothing to see here though...
Amount given: zero fahks
-
Regardless of what he said about Trump/Sessions saying he would stay on, I've not read anything in an official capacity on what Trump actually told him. Maybe Trump wanted him to stay on a month or two, and he thought that meant permanently. Maybe Trump said stay on for a month, and let me think about it. I don't know, and I imagine, no one you read really knows either. So many other legitimate things to worry about, I just feel this is really nothing.
Anyway, I'm glad he is well respected by both Republicans and Democrats. You know who else is? Neil Gorsuch.
Lots of words.
Wrong! would have sufficed.
-
All I heard was "Dammit that Trump is still doing his job"!
-
House Intelligence Committee asked the Justice Dept to turn over any proof that former President Obama wiretapped Trump during the 2016 election. Deadline, today.
"He wasn't talking literally...the president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities." - Sean Spicer (also suggested that Trump wasn't accusing former President Barack Obama specifically, but instead referring to the actions of the Obama administration)...SMH
-
House Intelligence Committee asked the Justice Dept to turn over any proof that former President Obama wiretapped Trump during the 2016 election. Deadline, today.
"He wasn't talking literally...the president used the word wiretap in quotes to mean broadly surveillance and other activities." - Sean Spicer (also suggested that Trump wasn't accusing former President Barack Obama specifically, but instead referring to the actions of the Obama administration)...SMH
Dumbass.
-
Dumbass.
And still zero fucs given. Don't forget that.
-
Dumbass.
Speaking of dumbasses, here's one of Trump's lead advisors...
"There are many ways to surveil each other now, unfortunately...There was an article this week that talked about how you can surveil someone through their phones, certainly through their television sets, any number of different ways. And microwaves that turn into cameras, etc. So we know that that is just a fact of modern life.†- Kellyanne Conway after being asked specifically about the wiretapping done at Trump Tower.
http://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/mike-kelly/2017/03/12/mike-kelly-conway-suggests-even-wider-surveillance-trump-campaign/99060910/
Here's another dumbass...
Trump responded...we need more time. :facepalm:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/house-intelligence-panel-wants-wiretapping-evidence-monday-n732451
Meanwhile, Obama is over there like...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6zqXoyV0AIdu-c.jpg)
TAKE ALL THE TIME YOU NEED
-
New update today on the amount of Fuks given.....still 0.
-
New update today on the amount of Fuks given.....still 0.
Did you hear that Trump Paid $38 million in taxes in 2005? Rachel Maddow told me so
-
Did you hear that Trump Paid $38 million in taxes in 2005? Rachel Maddow told me so
Ommagerd!!! The outrage. He should be paying his taxes like the rest of....wait. Nm
-
Aaaand *poof*...someone should tell the President to do more research before tweeting, or better yet, stop tweeting all together and focus on more important things like running the Country, instead of coming off like a big crybaby.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/gop-chairman-of-house-intel-panel-i-don-t-think-there-was-an-actual-tap-of-trump-tower-1489593783
-
Aaaand *poof*...someone should tell the President to do more research before tweeting, or better yet, stop tweeting all together and focus on more important things like running the Country, instead of coming off like a big crybaby.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/gop-chairman-of-house-intel-panel-i-don-t-think-there-was-an-actual-tap-of-trump-tower-1489593783
Amazingly we are now delving into a negative number of given fucks
-
Amazingly we are now delving into a negative number of given fudges
So Prowler now owes you a fuck?
-
So Prowler now owes you a fuck?
Hmm. Not sure how that works. Seems as if since I -- we -- are the ones not giving fucks then in a negative situation perhaps we should receive one.
-
Hmm. Not sure how that works. Seems as if since I -- we -- are the ones not giving fucks then in a negative situation perhaps we should receive one.
Yeah...I'm gonna' pass. Let me know how that goes. And if his softish beard tickles.
-
Yeah...I'm gonna' pass. Let me know how that goes. And if his softish beard tickles.
He should really pay for a hooker. I think that's how it goes.
Except he will want to take my money and hire a more expensive and shittier hooker than I would choose for myself on the open market. Then he would take more of my money to make sure the "less fortunate" also had expensive and shitty hookers.
Seems like a bad deal.
-
He should really pay for a hooker. I think that's how it goes.
Except he will want to take my money and hire a more expensive and shittier hooker than I would choose for myself on the open market. Then he would take more of my money to make sure the "less fortunate" also had expensive and shitty hookers.
Seems like a bad deal.
Look, if someone else will pay for the hookers, I'm all in.
-
Unfortunately for libtards, Trump can tweet and work at the same time!
-
Unfortunately for libtards, Trump can tweet and work at the same time!
Have you listened to Trump talk without a teleprompter? There's a real possibility that he can't chew gum and walk at the same time. He, that has a phobia of staircases and germs, represents you well.
#Mic
#Drop
-
Have you listened to Trump talk without a teleprompter? There's a real possibility that he can't chew gum and walk at the same time. He, that has a phobia of staircases and germs, represents you well.
#Mic
#Drop
That wasn't a TV prowler. That was a mirror you were watching.
-
Look, if someone else will pay for the hookers, I'm all in.
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/56e0f4729105841d008b5633-480/bernie-sanders.jpg)
-
That wasn't a TV prowler. That was a mirror you were watching.
^^That just happened^^
-
That wasn't a TV prowler. That was a mirror you were watching.
I said LISTEN. Learn how to read, moron...he, that "knows words, big words" and has "a good brain", represents you "bigly."
#Boom
#ThatJustHappenedAllOverYourFace
-
I said LISTEN. Learn how to read, moron...he, that "knows words, big words" and has "a good brain", represents you "bigly."
#Boom
#ThatJustHappenedAllOverYourFace
Dude. Nutting on his face isn't how providing a hooker works.
-
Oh wait...Trump's press secretary Sean Spicer stated that Obama went through the British Intelligence spying agency to wiretap Trump.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: ... :facepalm: :facepalm:
-
Dude. Nutting on his face isn't how providing a hooker works.
Gay ain't it?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/devin-nunes-trump-communications/
House Intel chairman: Trump's personal communications may have been collected
(CNN)House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said Wednesday that President Donald Trump's personal communications may have been picked up by investigators through "incidental collection."
Nunes said at a news conference he discovered the potential surveillance of Trump himself while reviewing intelligence reports, but said it was not related to Russia.
"This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect," Nunes said. "This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Nunes said he alerted House Speaker Paul Ryan about the collection and is traveling to the White House Wednesday afternoon.
"I'm actually alarmed by it," Nunes said.
Nunes is chairing the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian meddling into the US election last year. Two weeks ago, Trump asked Congress to investigate whether Trump Tower was wiretapped by his predecessor, then-President Barack Obama.
On Monday, Nunes' committee held a hearing featuring FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. At that hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time that his agency is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether any crimes may have been committed during last year's election campaign as part of a wider probe into the hacking of Democratic servers and the Clinton campaign.
Also at that hearing, Comey said he had seen no evidence so far of the specific allegation of wiretapping Trump Tower.
Nunes did not know whether the "incidental collection" happened at Trump Tower, and could not say for certain whether Trump's communications were directly collected.
Nunes said the collection included Trump transition officials and that it happened after the election. He said he could not say whether it meant that Trump was "spied on"
"I'm not going to get into legal definitions, but clearly I have a concern," he said.
Oh.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/devin-nunes-trump-communications/
Oh.
When are ya'll gonna learn? Trump is smarter than wes thinks. Waaaaay
-
When are ya'll gonna learn? Trump is smarter than wes thinks. Waaaaay
You reckon Trump doesn't fly off the handle after all? Maybe he actually knows more than some think?
He sure seems to get vindicated in almost every "controversy" he supposedly is so wrong about.
-
You reckon Trump doesn't fly off the handle after all? Maybe he actually knows more than some think?
He sure seems to get vindicated in almost every "controversy" he supposedly is so wrong about.
But wes demands recourse!!!!
-
"A House member on the Intelligence Committee told CNN the communications in question were senior-level people talking about Trump, not Trump himself."
"Nunes did not know whether the "incidental collection" happened at Trump Tower, and could not say for certain whether Trump's communications were directly collected.
Nunes said the collection included Trump transition officials and that it happened after the election."
"Trump's smart...DURR", "Trump knows more than some think...DURRRRR"
We're still at no known wiretapping of Trump Tower or of Trump, done during the election by Obama or the British.
-
But the FBI director said the president did not have the power to someone surveilled!
If a sitting president wants someone looked in on, they get looked in on. Not everything is one the books.
Hopefully a president only uses that power for national security and not for trumping up dirt on your vile friend's political foe!
-
When are ya'll gonna learn? Trump is smarter than wes thinks. Waaaaay
The old "he doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to".
-
The old "he doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to".
Especially when it was Trump's White House that "gave" Nunes the "intel" that still didn't prove anything, other than Nunes isn't accountable to head any investigation into Trump when his first reaction is to run to him. Trump was either testing Nunes to see where his loyalty lies or he told Nunes what to say.
Gonna use the bama NCAA investigating analogy again. This is like a head of the NCAA investigating team saying that bama committed zero violations, from the Intel received from two of his trusted sources, only to later find out that the two trusted sources were Harvey Updyke and someone in the UA athletic dept.
-
Especially when it was Trump's White House that "gave" Nunes the "intel" that still didn't prove anything, other than Nunes isn't accountable to head any investigation into Trump when his first reaction is to run to him. Trump was either testing Nunes to see where his loyalty lies or he told Nunes what to say.
Gonna use the bama NCAA investigating analogy again. This is like a head of the NCAA investigating team saying that bama committed zero violations, from the Intel received from two of his trusted sources, only to later find out that the two trusted sources were Harvey Updyke and someone in the UA athletic dept.
Wrong. You're just making up conspiracies. And quit using Bama as an analogy. It's a horrible one.
Please read prowler. If you are capable.
New today:
1. The surveillance that led to the unmasking started way BEFORE Trump was the GOP nominee
2. The person who did the unmasking is very high up in the intelligence world and is not in the FBI
3. The people reported by the NY Times were not Nunes sources. They only helped him navigate the intelligence
4. Nunes was told about the unmasking of Trump’s team back in January BEFORE Trump’s tweet about Obama’s spying.
5. It took a while to coordinate Nunes seeing the intelligence reports in order to protect his source. They chose the White House because it was the only other location they could view the reporting without outing the source.
6. None of this has anything to do with Russia.
-
Wrong. You're just making up conspiracies. And quit using Bama as an analogy. It's a horrible one.
Please read prowler. If you are capable.
New today:
So on point number 2 above - Susan Rice? I'm not sure John Grisham could have written this. Wow.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html
-
So on point number 2 above - Susan Rice? I'm not sure John Grisham couldnt have written this. Wow.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/03/susan-rice-requested-to-unmask-names-trump-transition-officials-sources-say.html
Oh yeah? Well, the NCAA didn't investigate Bama and they found nothing. You should do more research.
-
Oh yeah? Well, the NCAA didn't investigate Bama and they found nothing. You should do more research.
You forgot rot gutter trash hore dick ass shitface.
-
You forgot rot gutter trash hore dick ass shitface.
Wrong!
-
Wrong!
Maybe you need to read!!
-
Maybe you need to read!!
Whore shit. smh
-
Whore shit. smh
Ass served. Platter. Boom. Mic drop!