Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

Redress said:

See, if you had read the source instead of making assumptions, you would not make such retarded ****ing mistakes. Here, let me quote for you:



Incidental, meaning it was not intentional.



Some one is "masked" when they are picked up in "wiretaps" of other people.



"Incidental surveillance", and legal. So much for your theory,. Nice try, but next time read the source before saying stupid ****.

Click to expand...

Vox said:

Primer on doing legal illegal wiretapping from someone who held an above Top Secret Clearance for many years.

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

You wiretap all the ones you can make up an excuse to wiretap--foreigners, lawbreakers, left-handed people, immigrants, suspected jaywalkers, anyone with a foreign accent, suspected tax evaders and TV and movie stars and those who eat at Russian restaurants and drink vodka.

Thus as you listen to THEM........you can also listen to Trump's conversations and, OF COURSE, it's ONLY BY ACCIDENT--so it's totally OK!!!!

It's totally legal. You get tons of useful information to use against Trump.

Happy Endings.

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

:2usflag:

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

It does seem that simple, doesn't it? Pretty obvious too.
Makes you wonder why some people either can't understand it or they understand it but it doesn't fit the narrative they've committed themselves to.

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Why even bother? It's not like people can't see for themselves that the OP's link is from Fox. It says it right there in the link. Don't even have to click on the link to see it. Is this really the best response you can come up with in response to what the OP and Fox had to say? If so....that's rather pathetic.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

So President Obama ordered a wiretap of Trumps phones during the election campaign?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Gotta love the left's reliance on the old "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense of the indefensible. You guys constantly refer to Trump as an unsophisticated, clumsy rube in his Twitter pronouncements and yet in this case you want to take his words as literal gospel. No fair minded person would claim that Trump was wrong or lying in his belief that he was being monitored electronically by the Obama administration if it becomes verifiably true that he and his associates had their conversations recorded without their knowledge.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

I simply read what he wrote and then try to determine if it was true and factual.

And it was not.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

So you have zero concern about the context and surrounding circumstances related to his words? And Comey's admission that the FBI was conducting an investigation of potential Russian involvement with the Trump campaign leads you to believe that members of the Trump campaign, including President Trump, were just innocent, incidental, victims of any picked up conversations involving said Russians? And the resultant, clearly illegal, leaking of recorded conversations and names of those "innocent" and "incidental" victims of that surveillance to the media is of no concern to you as well? Your only concern is that Trump, technically, was wrong, although substantively, was correct?

The term "useful idiots" can have multiple uses in today's America.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Gotta love the left's reliance on the old "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense of the indefensible. You guys constantly refer to Trump as an unsophisticated, clumsy rube in his Twitter pronouncements and yet in this case you want to take his words as literal gospel. No fair minded person would claim that Trump was wrong or lying in his belief that he was being monitored electronically by the Obama administration if it becomes verifiably true that he and his associates had their conversations recorded without their knowledge.

Click to expand...

Okay, then! Now that we’ve debunked the issue of whether Obama personally crawled into Trump Tower in late October to lay down wiretaps, can we talk about the significant information revealed by the House Intelligence Committee chairman regarding the Obama administration’s questionable behavior in November, December, and January? The selective leaking of Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders? The unmasking and smearing of Michael Flynn? Now that we’ve gotten the wiretap issue out of the way? Can we? Or as I put it on Monday even before this latest bombshell, “We should be having a conversation about the surveillance of a political opponent.”

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

Comey said there was no evidence that supports Trumps tweets on this matter. What is not clear about that?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Gotta love the left's reliance on the old "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense of the indefensible. You guys constantly refer to Trump as an unsophisticated, clumsy rube in his Twitter pronouncements and yet in this case you want to take his words as literal gospel. No fair minded person would claim that Trump was wrong or lying in his belief that he was being monitored electronically by the Obama administration if it becomes verifiably true that he and his associates had their conversations recorded without their knowledge.

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

It's probably time for the left and Trump haters to start discrediting the NSA. Why, I bet they have 30,000 missing emails, too.

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

Let's say Kislyak was the target in a wiretap warrant.
Let's say he placed a phone call to Trump so it was recorded.
1) could you say the conversation was wiretapped?
2) could you say Kislyak was wiretapped?
3) could you say that Trump was wiretapped?

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

The most telling part of the truth of Trump's accusations, for me, is the utter dead silence coming from President Obama and his surrogates - not a peep from them denying the charges.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

The most telling part of the truth of Trump's accusations, for me, is the utter dead silence coming from President Obama and his surrogates - not a peep from them denying the charges.

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

Obama just read about it today. He's no doubt as surprised as anyone else. Heh. Had no idea, and whoever is responsible for this should be prosecuted. There. Leave me alone. I'm just trying to have a waffle cone here.

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

IF THAT HAPPENED DURING MY ADMINISTRATION
HEADS WOULD ROLL - THAT'S NOT AN ISLAM REFERENCE.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Yes, taking the same stand you do, technically, legally, Comey was safe in saying that President Obama didn't order the wiretapping of Trump Tower and Trump's phones. You noticed, I assume, however, that Comey did not say that Trump and his associates nor any Trump associates operating out of Trump Tower, had their conversations recorded by the FBI or any other intelligence agency of the US government nor was any such surveillance approved by President Obama or his surrogates in his administration - right? What Comey said, in answer to such questions, was that he could not speak to the confidential information related to an ongoing investigation. By doing so, he deflected from the gist of the accusation - Trump and his associates were part of a surveillance effort initiated by the Obama administration.

So, again, for you it's the old Clinton argument - "depends on what the definition of 'is' is".

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

What part of the story has no merit and why do you think it has no merit?

Click to expand...

Kal'Stang said:

Vox makes a very good point here....



With as much lying as is done on Capitol Hill, even long before Trump came along I see what Vox here says as being completely within the realm of possibility.

And the fact that key people were "unmasked" as they call it and then leaked to the press makes all of this suspect. No matter what side of the aisle you're on this kind of thing should make anyone at the very least concerned. Even if it didn't happen with Trump and his associates this possibility should concern people.

Add to this the fact that it wouldn't be the first time the Obama admin messed with electioneering.

Frankly I see this as damning.

Now all that said. This does not absolve Trump and his associates of anything. The fact that they were recorded talking to suspect people still needs to be investigated and what was said/done needs to be brought into the light. Like I said about Hillary, if they had done nothing wrong in the first place then all of this would not be happening right now. At least not in the same context. I'm sure those that hate Trump would still find something to bitch and moan about.

Click to expand...

Redress said:

I find it scary when we have replaced facts in political discussion with speculative conspiracy nonsense. "Well, it could possibly be true, so let's treat it as if it is!" Not a good strategy to get at the truth.

Click to expand...

haymarket said:

I am 67 years old. I was raised to mean what you say and say what you mean. When somebody tells me that Jack killed his neighbors pig - I hear that somebody named Jack killed a pig who belonged to his neighbor. I do not stop and ask if he is being literal or figurative or if the word pig is clumsy shorthand for something different that a pig or if the word killed means something other than what it does.

Look - lets be brutally frank here and not pull any puches - Trump is a freakin train wreck who has nearly daily diahrea of the mouth. He constantly says obviously stupid stuff that bites him in his own ass making him look stupid. What the right tries to do is pretend that Trump should NOT be evaluated on the basis for what he says precisely because he is Trump, is prone to senseless hyperbole, uses word as points of negotiation, and has all the problems communicating and being clear that he does.

SCREW THAT.

I judge Trump the same way I judge the words of others. Anything else would not be right nor proper.

What this comes down to is that Trump apologists are taking the position that you cannot judge Trump by his words because the man does not use words like every other person on the planet. Sorry - but that does not wash.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Two things:

1. I'm not a Trump apologist - I too think the Republicans made a bad mistake nominating him but given the choice, America made the right one as opposed to another go round with the corrupt Clintons.

2. Your analogy with the pig fails because it's not detailed enough - a true analogy would be if someone told you Jack stabbed your neighbour's pig and killed it and in reality Jack actually beat it to death with a baseball bat. The end result would still be a dead pig, but you'd claim it was all a lie because no pigs were stabbed. You're all about the detail of the method as opposed to the substance of the result.

You can hate Trump all you want - that's not unnatural in today's political climate - but you can't argue the fact that what appears to have happened under the Obama administration's Justice Department is at the very least troubling and entirely likely to have been illegal, at least as it relates to the leaking of information to the media.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

Two things:

1. I'm not a Trump apologist - I too think the Republicans made a bad mistake nominating him but given the choice, America made the right one as opposed to another go round with the corrupt Clintons.

2. Your analogy with the pig fails because it's not detailed enough - a true analogy would be if someone told you Jack stabbed your neighbour's pig and killed it and in reality Jack actually beat it to death with a baseball bat. The end result would still be a dead pig, but you'd claim it was all a lie because no pigs were stabbed. You're all about the detail of the method as opposed to the substance of the result.

You can hate Trump all you want - that's not unnatural in today's political climate - but you can't argue the fact that what appears to have happened under the Obama administration's Justice Department is at the very least troubling and entirely likely to have been illegal, at least as it relates to the leaking of information to the media.

Click to expand...