• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Understanding Obama's "Legal" Wiretaps on Trump

Vox

Vox

Voice and Wisdom of God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
6,765
Reaction score
954
Location
Land of Logic
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal. You ACCIDENTALLY get tons of useful information to use against Trump. Some important.....some just embarrassing gossip you can leak to the Media (as a "Highly Placed Source").

Happy Endings for you.

ONLY........YOU GET CAUGHT RELEASING THAT INFORMATION--WHICH IS CLASSIFIED!!!

Now we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
 
I guess I missed the part where you or anyone else actually provided even a single shred of evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump.
 
Vox said:
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal. You ACCIDENTALLY get tons of useful information to use against Trump. Some important.....some just embarrassing gossip you can leak to the Media (as a "Highly Placed Source").

Happy Endings for you.

ONLY........YOU GET CAUGHT RELEASING THAT INFORMATION--WHICH IS CLASSIFIED!!!

Now we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

The growing conspiracy theories y'all have is pretty entertaining.

Of course...proof of any of this would be nice.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I guess I missed the part where you or anyone else actually provided even a single shred of evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump.
Click to expand...

Obama was president at the time.

Just as Putin HAD to be responsible for the hacking of Clinton........so Obama must take responsibility for what his NSA Operatives did.

:2usflag:
 
azgreg said:
In your head and no where else.
Click to expand...

Everywhere else, quite obviously.

If it were not a big story, Adam Schiff would not have been on CNN three times already this morning doing damage control.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
Everywhere else, quite obviously.

If it were not a big story, Adam Schiff would not have been on CNN three times already this morning doing damage control.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

LOL! Except, of course, for the fact that what Schiff has been doing isn't 'damage control' in even the most tangential sense.

Keep swinging for the fences. You're bound to hit something one day.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Except, of course, for the fact that what Schiff has been doing isn't 'damage control' in even the most tangential sense.

Keep swinging for the fences. You're bound to hit something one day.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's damage control, all right.

Why else would he be pushing that tired old "Russian" ploy yet again?

Saying that there is "more than circumstantial evidence?"

A wild claim that actually says..........nothing.......but does show fear and desperation.

Yes.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
Oh, it's damage control, all right.
Click to expand...

Nah. You can pretend it is all you'd like if it makes you feel better, though.
Why else would he be pushing that tired old "Russian" ploy yet again?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask that, you clearly haven't been paying attention and aren't interested in honest discourse. Oh, wait....
Saying that there is "more than circumstantial evidence?"

A wild claim that actually says..........nothing.......but does show fear and desperation.

Yes.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

Yes, there is great fear and desperation on your part. I'm glad you're finally coming clean on that.
 
Vox said:
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal. You ACCIDENTALLY get tons of useful information to use against Trump. Some important.....some just embarrassing gossip you can leak to the Media (as a "Highly Placed Source").

Happy Endings for you.

ONLY........YOU GET CAUGHT RELEASING THAT INFORMATION--WHICH IS CLASSIFIED!!!

Now we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

Yes...how dare we listen in on Russian leaders. Clearly we know that is who Trump is going to be talking to and that is how we can indirectly listen in on him.
 
Vox said:
Obama was president at the time.

Just as Putin HAD to be responsible for the hacking of Clinton........so Obama must take responsibility for what his NSA Operatives did.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

And when people blame Trump for EVERYTHING during his presidency, I'm sure you have no shortage of excuses. You provided no evidence Obama was involved, nor that Trump was actually wiretapped at all.
 
Vox said:
we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

some do and some dont.

It wont matter.

The media would never report negatively on the annointed one regardless.

He could have planted audio and surveillance cameras himself in a ninja suit and loons would throw their bodies in front of a train for him.

oninja.jpg
 
Vox said:
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal. You ACCIDENTALLY get tons of useful information to use against Trump. Some important.....some just embarrassing gossip you can leak to the Media (as a "Highly Placed Source").

Happy Endings for you.

ONLY........YOU GET CAUGHT RELEASING THAT INFORMATION--WHICH IS CLASSIFIED!!!

Now we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

How is your opinion up for political debate?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
And when people blame Trump for EVERYTHING during his presidency, I'm sure you have no shortage of excuses. You provided no evidence Obama was involved, nor that Trump was actually wiretapped at all.
Click to expand...

Except that Nunes clearly stated that operatives listened to Trump phone calls and then names were unmasked in ways that he found troubling.

:2usflag:
 
Ikari said:
Incidental surveillance doesn't prove the conspiracy though, that's just supposition.
Click to expand...

And that's why the investigation continues.

:2usflag:
 
Vox said:
And that's why the investigation continues.
Click to expand...

OK, investigate away, as I said in a different thread, investigate the leaks and investigate the leads.

But as of this moment, there is no proof.
 
Vox said:
It's brutally simple, but there still seems to be a lot of confusion about it.

Excerpt from: The Artful Deceiver's Handbook (Crooked Surveillance 101).

Here's how you do ILLEGAL Trump wiretapping legally. This from someone who held the highest level Top Secret Clearance and drank beer with NSA Spooks for many years.

You identify people that talk with Trump on the phone often.

You wiretap all of these that you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, people who read Russian spy novels, those who made suspicious FaceBook posts, those who travel to foreign countries often, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

THEN.......as you listen to these notorious threats to motherhood and apple pie........you cannot avoid listening to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!! It's just incidental.

It's totally legal. You ACCIDENTALLY get tons of useful information to use against Trump. Some important.....some just embarrassing gossip you can leak to the Media (as a "Highly Placed Source").

Happy Endings for you.

ONLY........YOU GET CAUGHT RELEASING THAT INFORMATION--WHICH IS CLASSIFIED!!!

Now we all understand what Nunes was talking about.

:2usflag:
Click to expand...

Help me out. Who got caught releasing this info?

And if you agree they have plausible deniability, then what shall we hang our outrage on?

It's not like they are trading guns for drugs, or overthrowing legitimate foreign governments.

Why should we care?
 
WillyPete said:
Help me out. Who got caught releasing this info?

And if you agree they have plausible deniability, then what shall we hang our outrage on?

It's not like they are trading guns for drugs, or overthrowing legitimate foreign governments.

Why should we care?
Click to expand...

We should care because Trump's rights would have been violated and the law would have been broken.

There is no "plausible deniability" for those who revealed the names (if incorrectly) and for those who leaked the information.

If caught, they go to jail.

:2usflag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom