Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
Care to back the claim that the first request is rarely denied? Where are you pulling that from? Second, Obama can't order a FISA request. The fact that you push this shows your ignorance of the intention of the law and why it was proposed and came into being (hello tricky dick). The most clean prez since Carter is going to ruin his legacy over Trump? You've reached GF territory of wishful thinking and JC battle space of Comet Pizza. What about all else professor?
Trump and his cronies' Russian ties are all just legitimate business dealings that have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Putin wanting to interfere with western power and cohesiveness. How naive do you have to be? Or paranoid that Obama is the real enemy? Or racist?
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
Care to back the claim that the first request is rarely denied? Where are you pulling that from? Second, Obama can't order a FISA request. The fact that you push this shows your ignorance of the intention of the law and why it was proposed and came into being (hello tricky dick). The most clean prez since Carter is going to ruin his legacy over Trump? You've reached GF territory of wishful thinking and JC battle space of Comet Pizza. What about all else professor?
Again for man who doesn't read...I just said that the statement "Obama ordered" can be disputed. There is a question however of whether he was aware of the FISA request and/or was he involved in any discussions surrounding the request. Right now his own people such as Jon Favreau are not denying that spying took place...they are just denying White House involvement. That might be true but sorry if I don't just accept them at their word. An investigation can verify whether they are telling the truth.
Now in terms of your first point listen to Johnathan Turley as this has been written about extensively
It is why so many people on the AMT were against this process during the Bush years. I am personally not against the process provided that it is not being abused. What I never fully grasped is that those who were most concerned about potential FISA abuse would be the one's to do all the abusing.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
What is the evidence that the FISA request(s) were truly made, and that spying truly followed?
Reel big fish swimming around the White House. Follow the money like Congress minus Cruz, from Russia with love, impeach Trump and send him fishing. He likes boats, apparently.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
What is the evidence that the FISA request(s) were truly made, and that spying truly followed?
It's not called spying when Bush and Trump do it, it is called protecting America from terrorists and evil doers....and if you have nothing to hide who cares.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
Care to back the claim that the first request is rarely denied? Where are you pulling that from? Second, Obama can't order a FISA request. The fact that you push this shows your ignorance of the intention of the law and why it was proposed and came into being (hello tricky dick). The most clean prez since Carter is going to ruin his legacy over Trump? You've reached GF territory of wishful thinking and JC battle space of Comet Pizza. What about all else professor?
Again for man who doesn't read...I just said that the statement "Obama ordered" can be disputed. There is a question however of whether he was aware of the FISA request and/or was he involved in any discussions surrounding the request. Right now his own people such as Jon Favreau are not denying that spying took place...they are just denying White House involvement. That might be true but sorry if I don't just accept them at their word. An investigation can verify whether they are telling the truth.
Now in terms of your first point listen to Johnathan Turley as this has been written about extensively
It is why so many people on the AMT were against this process during the Bush years. I am personally not against the process provided that it is not being abused. What I never fully grasped is that those who were most concerned about potential FISA abuse would be the one's to do all the abusing.
Where did you say "Obama ordered" can be disputed? Furthermore, FISA requests originate from surveillance on foreigners. How would Trump be a target? Like Flynn maybe? Monitoring of Russian's communications picks up Trump. Court orders wire tap at FBI's request. Why? Because he's picked up on the phone with Putin or the Russian ambassador. His tweets lend credence to that scenario. Yours regarding Obama? Sure, Barry did it to help Hillary. Sure.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
What is the evidence that the FISA request(s) were truly made, and that spying truly followed?
Great question and this really is the key one. Andy McCarthy has been on this story and published a good update today
Yes it is National Review but I would hope people can read a source that has a good understanding of the law. The spying happened.
More importantly everything, including evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians as well as inappropriate conduct of the previous administration, hinges on whether a FISA request(s) happened and was it appropriate. If you want the impeachment of Trump on the Russia issue then you need FISA generated evidence and it needs to be untainted.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
What is the evidence that the FISA request(s) were truly made, and that spying truly followed?
Great question and this really is the key one. Andy McCarthy has been on this story and published a good update today
Yes it is National Review but I would hope people can read a source that has a good understanding of the law. The spying happened.
More importantly everything, including evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians as well as inappropriate conduct of the previous administration, hinges on whether a FISA request(s) happened and was it appropriate. If you want the impeachment of Trump on the Russia issue then you need FISA generated evidence and it needs to be untainted.
I am at work so I only skimmed but... All I am seeing is the words "report, reported, reporting", I am just wondering what evidence has been shown to back the reporting up?
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
Care to back the claim that the first request is rarely denied? Where are you pulling that from? Second, Obama can't order a FISA request. The fact that you push this shows your ignorance of the intention of the law and why it was proposed and came into being (hello tricky dick). The most clean prez since Carter is going to ruin his legacy over Trump? You've reached GF territory of wishful thinking and JC battle space of Comet Pizza. What about all else professor?
Again for man who doesn't read...I just said that the statement "Obama ordered" can be disputed. There is a question however of whether he was aware of the FISA request and/or was he involved in any discussions surrounding the request. Right now his own people such as Jon Favreau are not denying that spying took place...they are just denying White House involvement. That might be true but sorry if I don't just accept them at their word. An investigation can verify whether they are telling the truth.
Now in terms of your first point listen to Johnathan Turley as this has been written about extensively
It is why so many people on the AMT were against this process during the Bush years. I am personally not against the process provided that it is not being abused. What I never fully grasped is that those who were most concerned about potential FISA abuse would be the one's to do all the abusing.
Where did you say "Obama ordered" can be disputed? Furthermore, FISA requests originate from surveillance on foreigners. How would Trump be a target? Like Flynn maybe? Monitoring of Russian's communications picks up Trump. Court orders wire tap at FBI's request. Why? Because he's picked up on the phone with Putin or the Russian ambassador. His tweets lend credence to that scenario. Yours regarding Obama? Sure, Barry did it to help Hillary. Sure.
Can you really not read? You actually quoted the post where I said "Obama ordered" can be disputed. This is embarrassing already. The FISA requests were ordered. Now we need to see the supporting documentation to answer your above questions. Why were Flynn's calls spyed on? If it was just to listen to the ambassador that is fine but Flynn would be protected unless he was deemed an "agent" within the FISA request. So was he deemed an "agent"? If so by whom and with what evidence. You need to bring yourself up to speed on FISA.
Trump is not peddling a conspiracry theory. There was a FISA request. According to current reporting there were actually two requests...the first one was denied (which almost never happens) and the second one was granted. Then there was spying. So the only thing that can be disputed right now is whether Obama "ordered" the request. Somebody ordered it and there will be paperwork to back it up. Investigation time indeed.
What is the evidence that the FISA request(s) were truly made, and that spying truly followed?
Great question and this really is the key one. Andy McCarthy has been on this story and published a good update today
Yes it is National Review but I would hope people can read a source that has a good understanding of the law. The spying happened.
More importantly everything, including evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians as well as inappropriate conduct of the previous administration, hinges on whether a FISA request(s) happened and was it appropriate. If you want the impeachment of Trump on the Russia issue then you need FISA generated evidence and it needs to be untainted.
I am at work so I only skimmed but... All I am seeing is the words "report, reported, reporting", I am just wondering what evidence has been shown to back the reporting up?
Earliest report I an aware of came from 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."
Dem Senator Chris Coons seems to confirm that there are "transcripts" of conversations that he wants to see although he walked that back heavily this morning.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
It's contrived distraction because we all know we can't trust the black guy. It's as if Hillary's emails were never leaked, trump never encouraged Russia to hack her emails or that Trump and all of those close to him had no ties to Russia or Putin. It's hilarious. Trust Trump of 3 lies a day every day over the black guy who was repeatedly investigated but never found guilty of anything. Create an alternate narrative, take the heat off. But treasury always gets their man.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
It's contrived distraction because we all know we can't trust the black guy. It's as if Hillary's emails were never leaked, trump never encouraged Russia to hack her emails or that Trump and all of those close to him had no ties to Russia or Putin. It's hilarious. Trust Trump of 3 lies a day every day over the black guy who was repeatedly investigated but never found guilty of anything. Create an alternate narrative, take the heat off. But treasury always gets their man.
There it is..."the black guy". That's when you know a debate has been surrendered. Sad!
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
Unplanned, private lied about meetings with foreigners shouldn't happen. Do you qualify anything or is it all one big vacuum in the absence of known facts?
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
There are a few very important aspects that you are forgetting:
1. What was the reason for the request? According to Mark Levin it was related to a server in Trump Tower that was connected directly to a pair of Russian banks. Under the Patriot Act and corresponding financial related acts like the Bank Secrecy Act and the AML, the government has a duty and obligation to monitor such potential illegal transactions or data sharing.
2. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that exempts political candidates from the requirements and therefore the wiretaps.
The risk for Trump of course, to make an ex-President his new enemy to try to change the story from his current crisis. As has been well documented, the tapping of Trump Tower was something that made the news before the election. Trump team certainly knew about it. Curious that he chose Saturday to make it his new Foil Du Jour.
What would the reason be for Obama spying and then not doing anything to prevent Trump winning the election? I hope the Trump administration is not too busy putting out all their evidence on the 3-5 million illegal votes so we can find out.
Is it true the DNC would not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? Who was it that secretly said to Russian President, "Tell Vladimir that after the election I'll have more flexibility?" @foxandfriends
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
There are a few very important aspects that you are forgetting:
1. What was the reason for the request? According to Mark Levin it was related to a server in Trump Tower that was connected directly to a pair of Russian banks. Under the Patriot Act and corresponding financial related acts like the Bank Secrecy Act and the AML, the government has a duty and obligation to monitor such potential illegal transactions or data sharing.
2. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that exempts political candidates from the requirements and therefore the wiretaps.
The risk for Trump of course, to make an ex-President his new enemy to try to change the story from his current crisis. As has been well documented, the tapping of Trump Tower was something that made the news before the election. Trump team certainly knew about it. Curious that he chose Saturday to make it his new Foil Du Jour.
I'm glad that you are conceding that Trump Tower was tapped. I am not 100% certain myself and it doesn't appear the media is fully confirming this yet. You're points above are not incorrect but I'm sure you understand how explosive this can be. A candidate was being spyed on and rightly or wrongly it sets a very dangerous precedent. The paperwork and conduct better be on the up and up.
Is it true the DNC would not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? Who was it that secretly said to Russian President, "Tell Vladimir that after the election I'll have more flexibility?" @foxandfriends
This was true. The DNC had a private company assess their server and then sent the FBI their own report. It is why no charges have and/or likely will be laid.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
There are a few very important aspects that you are forgetting:
1. What was the reason for the request? According to Mark Levin it was related to a server in Trump Tower that was connected directly to a pair of Russian banks. Under the Patriot Act and corresponding financial related acts like the Bank Secrecy Act and the AML, the government has a duty and obligation to monitor such potential illegal transactions or data sharing.
2. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that exempts political candidates from the requirements and therefore the wiretaps.
The risk for Trump of course, to make an ex-President his new enemy to try to change the story from his current crisis. As has been well documented, the tapping of Trump Tower was something that made the news before the election. Trump team certainly knew about it. Curious that he chose Saturday to make it his new Foil Du Jour.
I'm glad that you are conceding that Trump Tower was tapped. I am not 100% certain myself and it doesn't appear the media is fully confirming this yet. You're points above are not incorrect but I'm sure you understand how explosive this can be. A candidate was being spyed on and rightly or wrongly it sets a very dangerous precedent. The paperwork and conduct better be on the up and up.
You act as if Obama ordered trump tower tapped on a whim. The paper work better be on the up and up? Trump's tax returns better be on the up and up. Can you imagine if a dem were faced with such allegations? Oh wait, they already were, Benghazi, birth certificate, fast & furious, a bush era program Obama inherited, by the way. False equivalency and narrative that isn't going anywhere no matter how hard you stamp your feet.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
There are a few very important aspects that you are forgetting:
1. What was the reason for the request? According to Mark Levin it was related to a server in Trump Tower that was connected directly to a pair of Russian banks. Under the Patriot Act and corresponding financial related acts like the Bank Secrecy Act and the AML, the government has a duty and obligation to monitor such potential illegal transactions or data sharing.
2. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that exempts political candidates from the requirements and therefore the wiretaps.
The risk for Trump of course, to make an ex-President his new enemy to try to change the story from his current crisis. As has been well documented, the tapping of Trump Tower was something that made the news before the election. Trump team certainly knew about it. Curious that he chose Saturday to make it his new Foil Du Jour.
I'm glad that you are conceding that Trump Tower was tapped. I am not 100% certain myself and it doesn't appear the media is fully confirming this yet. You're points above are not incorrect but I'm sure you understand how explosive this can be. A candidate was being spyed on and rightly or wrongly it sets a very dangerous precedent. The paperwork and conduct better be on the up and up.
I'm not conceding that. I'm following the premise to start.
It doesn't create a dangerous precedent in my mind considering the questions surrounding the Trump people's consistent and bizarre lies around meeting with the Russians, coupled with the general acquiescence of the American people with the Patriot Act. In fact, it may have been a dereliction of duty by the Obama Justice Dept to NOT investigate the issue.
It could not be any more ironic that the Clinton campaign was furious over Russian hacking while all the while the U.S. Justice Department was tapping the Trump campaign communications.
Here is what I want: Charge the administration or move on. Let's get this show on the road. Trump hasn't even done anything yet. When he does something than the left can fight it, just like the right did with Obama.
Trump's claim that Obama ordered the wire "tapp" holds about as much water as the illegal voter claim. How's that investigation going btw? The same thing will happen w/ the investigation into Obama. Nothing, because they are both baseless claims from a paranoid sociopath.
I believe Louise Mensch's report that the FISA warrant requested by the FBI for surveillance was approved in October. Trying to associate Obama w/ the surveillance is an attempt to undermine the results as a political attack. It's also convenient as Trump needs an enemy to rally his supporters. He'll never stop campaigning against HRC & Obama, because he has to keep reminding the rubes how much they hate them and why they supported him in the first place.
It's a very convenient distraction & it works:
"Never mind Russia, remember Hillary? Remember Obama?"
It could not be any more ironic that the Clinton campaign was furious over Russian hacking while all the while the U.S. Justice Department was tapping the Trump campaign communications.
Here is what I want: Charge the administration or move on. Let's get this show on the road. Trump hasn't even done anything yet. When he does something than the left can fight it, just like the right did with Obama.
Four agencies are actively investigating the Trump camp and their ties to Russia and Putin. Fact. Thorough investigations take time, particularly with all the ties that bind these clowns to Russia and Putin. This is not about a political witch hunt as a result of sour grapes over a lost election. This is about a very serious direct threat to our democratic ideals with a quid pro quo thrown in as an added bonus. Trump is going to be impeached.
Follow the money, like Congress minus Cruz, from Russia with love, impeach trump.
"Lawnewz?" Not the ABA? Or the Cato Institute? Lawnewz, with a z? Really? A wholly owned subsidiary of brietbart or drudge?
Well I guess you didn't read it. Clearly to wordy for you. To intricate. To technical. My bad...I forgot what grade I was teaching.
By the way, Professor, are you going to respond to the definition of apartheid or are you looking for a click bait website to link to? Let me know when you're serious because right now, with all that's swirling in the bowl, you look silly.
Bring it on, from Russia with love, follow the money, impeach trump.
Typical deflect and distraction. That's ok...I for one am excited. So many previous scandals have been compared to Watergate but now we get to witness an investigation of something that is almost literally Watergate. Sure a judge approved the spying but boy oh boy if that approval was abused this will get extremely entertaining. What did Obama know about the FISA request and when did he know it? Heck is this what Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton talked about on the airplane? Did she share some inside info? So many angles to investigate. Sessions will have his hands full.
Whatever. You are trolling and you know it. If the Obama admin made a request and it was approved by the FISA judge, by definition it is legal. Unless the current justice department can prove that the FISA judge (a separate branch of gov't) colluded and the judge knowingly approved a request that the judge found to be illegitimate, too broad or unrelated, then there's no case. That's a pretty long stretch and not even close to Watergate. Because last time I saw All the President's Men, I don't recall a judge approving the break in and tapping.
The FISA request and approval would have been narrow. The paperwork needs to be seen. What evidence obtained post-spying would need to be seen. How this evidence was handled and then disseminated needs to be seen. There are laws that govern all of this. The judge approval may be valid but post-approval conduct might not have been.Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane. This is an administration spying on a candidate. Nobody will be ok if Trump brings a FISA request on his 2020 opponent. Prospective candidates better not meet with any foreign ambassadors over the next couple of years...that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.
1. might not have been---this is pure specualtion. 2. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane.---again, speculation & an attempt to speak for others. 3. This is an administration spying on a candidate.--I am of the belief that if there was probable cause, this is warranted. I don't give a shit who the candidate is. If they are operating outside of the boundaries of the law and constitution, they should be investigated. Whoever requested the FISA warrant must have had not only a strong belief, but strong evidence as well to convince the judge to sign off on it. It appears that 2 FISA requests were made. When the first one was declined, I imagine that it was due to lack of evidence. When it was approved, I would think that they had more than enough evidence to proceed. 4. that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.--if he still holds that position in 2020.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Now in terms of your first point listen to Johnathan Turley as this has been written about extensively
It is why so many people on the AMT were against this process during the Bush years. I am personally not against the process provided that it is not being abused. What I never fully grasped is that those who were most concerned about potential FISA abuse would be the one's to do all the abusing.
right?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/445504/obama-camp-disingenuous-denials-fisa-surveillance-trump
Yes it is National Review but I would hope people can read a source that has a good understanding of the law. The spying happened.
More importantly everything, including evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians as well as inappropriate conduct of the previous administration, hinges on whether a FISA request(s) happened and was it appropriate. If you want the impeachment of Trump on the Russia issue then you need FISA generated evidence and it needs to be untainted.
All I am seeing is the words "report, reported, reporting", I am just wondering what evidence has been shown to back the reporting up?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts
"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."
And then HeatStreet
https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/
Dem Senator Chris Coons seems to confirm that there are "transcripts" of conversations that he wants to see although he walked that back heavily this morning.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1. What was the reason for the request? According to Mark Levin it was related to a server in Trump Tower that was connected directly to a pair of Russian banks. Under the Patriot Act and corresponding financial related acts like the Bank Secrecy Act and the AML, the government has a duty and obligation to monitor such potential illegal transactions or data sharing.
2. There is nothing in the Patriot Act that exempts political candidates from the requirements and therefore the wiretaps.
The risk for Trump of course, to make an ex-President his new enemy to try to change the story from his current crisis. As has been well documented, the tapping of Trump Tower was something that made the news before the election. Trump team certainly knew about it. Curious that he chose Saturday to make it his new Foil Du Jour.
I hope the Trump administration is not too busy putting out all their evidence on the 3-5 million illegal votes so we can find out.
Who was it that secretly said to Russian President, "Tell Vladimir that after the election I'll have more flexibility?" @foxandfriends
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/05/politics/marco-rubio-trump-obama-wiretap/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It doesn't create a dangerous precedent in my mind considering the questions surrounding the Trump people's consistent and bizarre lies around meeting with the Russians, coupled with the general acquiescence of the American people with the Patriot Act. In fact, it may have been a dereliction of duty by the Obama Justice Dept to NOT investigate the issue.
Must be part of Trump's brilliant plan.
Haha.
Here is what I want: Charge the administration or move on. Let's get this show on the road. Trump hasn't even done anything yet. When he does something than the left can fight it, just like the right did with Obama.
Huckabee-Sanders got grilled by Martha Raddatz this morning.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Trump's claim that Obama ordered the wire "tapp" holds about as much water as the illegal voter claim. How's that investigation going btw? The same thing will happen w/ the investigation into Obama. Nothing, because they are both baseless claims from a paranoid sociopath.
I believe Louise Mensch's report that the FISA warrant requested by the FBI for surveillance was approved in October. Trying to associate Obama w/ the surveillance is an attempt to undermine the results as a political attack. It's also convenient as Trump needs an enemy to rally his supporters. He'll never stop campaigning against HRC & Obama, because he has to keep reminding the rubes how much they hate them and why they supported him in the first place.
It's a very convenient distraction & it works:
"Never mind Russia, remember Hillary? Remember Obama?"
*trump supporters go nuts because f liberals*
Don't get distracted.
Follow the ruple.
Follow the money, like Congress minus Cruz, from Russia with love, impeach trump.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2. Lastly...if Bush had attempted this on Obama you would all be going insane.---again, speculation & an attempt to speak for others.
3. This is an administration spying on a candidate.--I am of the belief that if there was probable cause, this is warranted. I don't give a shit who the candidate is. If they are operating outside of the boundaries of the law and constitution, they should be investigated. Whoever requested the FISA warrant must have had not only a strong belief, but strong evidence as well to convince the judge to sign off on it. It appears that 2 FISA requests were made. When the first one was declined, I imagine that it was due to lack of evidence. When it was approved, I would think that they had more than enough evidence to proceed.
4. that will give the Sessions DOJ a free hand to make a FISA request.--if he still holds that position in 2020.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com