This seems to be an important note @BS44325 Now this doesn't mean the FBI didn't make such a request as I don't believe it falls under the DHS, but one would be surprised if Comey was working illegally with the White House.
James Clapper, who left his post when Mr Trump took office on 20 January, told NBC's Meet the Press: "There was no such wire-tap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate, or against his campaign." He said that as intelligence director he would have known about any "court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it".
This seems to be an important note @BS44325 Now this doesn't mean the FBI didn't make such a request as I don't believe it falls under the DHS, but one would be surprised if Comey was working illegally with the White House.
James Clapper, who left his post when Mr Trump took office on 20 January, told NBC's Meet the Press: "There was no such wire-tap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate, or against his campaign." He said that as intelligence director he would have known about any "court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it".
Absolutely important but let's not forget that Clapper previously lied to congress under oath with respect to intelligence agencies spying on US citizens.
It's hilarious watching Trump's minions trip all over themselves trying to explain away the idiocy of his twitter comments.
Huckabee-Sanders got grilled by Martha Raddatz this morning.
And then right after that Josh Earnest couldn't issue a denial on the spying. Every answer from the Obama end of things has been very "lawyery". A lot of non-denial denials. There was spying from the Obama DOJ...that is where all this Russia innuendo is coming from. The scandal is turning out to be different from what you all hoped.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Look how well the Obama distraction is working. People are already projecting silly things like "if Bush did this to Obama......"
A judge approved the FISA warrant based on probable cause, and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that it wasn't because of campaign chicanery. It's shameful how much people believe anything that comes out of this serial liar's mouth.
I recommend giving Louise Mensch a follow if you're on twitter:
Look how well the Obama distraction is working. People are already projecting silly things like "if Bush did this to Obama......"
A judge approved the FISA warrant based on probable cause, and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that it wasn't because of campaign chicanery. It's shameful how much people believe anything that comes out of this serial liar's mouth.
I recommend giving Louise Mensch a follow if you're on twitter:
Yes a judged approved but a request from the Obama DOJ along with an affidavit would have been required. Also yes you would have all gone insane had the Bush DOJ brought a FISA request on Obama. That is the only thinf that isn't speculation at this point. It's a certainty.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Umm, speculation lead to Manafort resigning? Speculation lead to Sessions lying to congress? Speculation lead to Sessions recusing himself? Speculation lead to Flynn's resignation? It's speculation that Hillary's emails were hacked and released? Speculation seems to be your order of the day.
Let's all entertain hypothetical scenarios based on the nonsensical ramblings of a paranoid sociopath.
Never mind the lies & deceit & obfuscation & coverup from the likes of Flynn, Page & Sessions & more. Let's all run in the direction Trump tells us to.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Evidence is needed to obtain a warrant, which is what I said. Twist my words all you want. Lol. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting that idiot.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Evidence is needed to obtain a warrant, which is what I said. Twist my words all you want. Lol. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting that idiot.
Trump could say the N word and he would still defend him because of the "Magic R" Bill Maher talks about. Oh wait! He did say it!
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Evidence is needed to obtain a warrant, which is what I said. Twist my words all you want. Lol. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting that idiot.
What's even more fun about this is the fact that in order to get a FISA warrant, the evidence or probable cause has to indicate that someone is communicating w/ a foreign intelligence agency, or is actually a foreign spy. A FISA warrant would have nothing to do with campaign chicanery, unless the communication w/ the foreign agency is about the actual election.
If a judge did indeed approve a FISA warrant, it's because there was probable cause that Trump's campaign was involved w/ a foreign intelligence agency, not because Obama wanted to 'wire tapp' Trump.
Trump may have f'ed himself with yesterday's tweet storm.
I was always under the impression that candidates talked about their ideas for 12 months or so and then people voted for the candidate they wanted. The winner than tried to implement his or her agenda. I didn't realize it was a rally size competition. Maybe we should scrap voting altogether.
I just don't think 100,000 people rallying is news when we know there was an election 4 months or so ago where 53,000,000 people voted against Trump. Stop the presses! 0.2% of Hillary's voters are rallying. Nevermind the election 4 months ago where Hillary lost.
Trump is an idiot. He'll likely be impeached. I just think the media hyping up these rallies with a few hundred thousand people is a little silly so close to an actual election where 100 million people voted.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Evidence is needed to obtain a warrant, which is what I said. Twist my words all you want. Lol. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting that idiot.
What's even more fun about this is the fact that in order to get a FISA warrant, the evidence or probable cause has to indicate that someone is communicating w/ a foreign intelligence agency, or is actually a foreign spy. A FISA warrant would have nothing to do with campaign chicanery, unless the communication w/ the foreign agency is about the actual election.
If a judge did indeed approve a FISA warrant, it's because there was probable cause that Trump's campaign was involved w/ a foreign intelligence agency, not because Obama wanted to 'wire tapp' Trump.
Trump may have f'ed himself with yesterday's tweet storm.
But let's all talk about Obama & Bush, amirite?
Bingo. Thanks for further clarifying my point. A point that some people will refuse to admit. Trump can do absolutely no wrong in some people's eyes, which is hard to believe. Think of all of the information regarding him, his character (or lack thereof), and his words....yet, people still support him. It's beyond me.
"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.
Ha. All of a sudden we're against speculation are we? You are in the same post justifying spying on electoral candidates based on speculation! Amazing. The AMT has gone full circle on spying and McCarthyism. Bring on the investigations!
Evidence is needed to obtain a warrant, which is what I said. Twist my words all you want. Lol. Whatever makes you feel better about supporting that idiot.
What's even more fun about this is the fact that in order to get a FISA warrant, the evidence or probable cause has to indicate that someone is communicating w/ a foreign intelligence agency, or is actually a foreign spy. A FISA warrant would have nothing to do with campaign chicanery, unless the communication w/ the foreign agency is about the actual election.
If a judge did indeed approve a FISA warrant, it's because there was probable cause that Trump's campaign was involved w/ a foreign intelligence agency, not because Obama wanted to 'wire tapp' Trump.
Trump may have f'ed himself with yesterday's tweet storm.
But let's all talk about Obama & Bush, amirite?
Bingo. Thanks for further clarifying my point. A point that some people will refuse to admit. Trump can do absolutely no wrong in some people's eyes, which is hard to believe. Think of all of the information regarding him, his character (or lack thereof), and his words....yet, people still support him. It's beyond me.
What's even scarier is how people take what he says at face value. One tweet about Obama & we're back to bipartisan attacks as opposed to dealing with the reality that this administration is almost certainly compromised by a dangerous foreign entity.
But let's talk about Obama like good little lemmings, because that's what Trump wants us to talk about...... amirite?
Which is interesting, because of the few people who reference facts about what they didn't like about Obama, those facts will only be magnified under trump.
Transcripts indeed. I guess that confirms the tapping then. There better be some meat in those. Time for everybody to put their cards on the table. What evidence justified the FISA approval, who was spied on after the approval, what evidence was found following the approval, and how was collected evidence handled? Lot of minefields for all sides...be careful of the blowback.
Comments
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39172719
James Clapper, who left his post when Mr Trump took office on 20 January, told NBC's Meet the Press: "There was no such wire-tap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate, or against his campaign."
He said that as intelligence director he would have known about any "court order on something like this. Absolutely, I can deny it".
http://www.mediaite.com/online/you-stupid-stupid-btch-roger-stone-goes-on-profane-twitter-freak-out/
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Look how well the Obama distraction is working. People are already projecting silly things like "if Bush did this to Obama......"
A judge approved the FISA warrant based on probable cause, and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that it wasn't because of campaign chicanery. It's shameful how much people believe anything that comes out of this serial liar's mouth.
I recommend giving Louise Mensch a follow if you're on twitter:
Don't get distracted.
Follow the ruble.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Never mind the lies & deceit & obfuscation & coverup from the likes of Flynn, Page & Sessions & more. Let's all run in the direction Trump tells us to.
Don't get distracted.
Follow the ruble.
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
Don't get distracted, follow the ruble.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Distract.
Deflect.
Distract.
Rinse and repeat.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-don-cheadle-racist-misogynistic-golf-slurs-a7612651.html
Uhmm maybe there was some miscommunication amongst his supporters some forgot to show up lol
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If a judge did indeed approve a FISA warrant, it's because there was probable cause that Trump's campaign was involved w/ a foreign intelligence agency, not because Obama wanted to 'wire tapp' Trump.
Trump may have f'ed himself with yesterday's tweet storm.
But let's all talk about Obama & Bush, amirite?
I just don't think 100,000 people rallying is news when we know there was an election 4 months or so ago where 53,000,000 people voted against Trump. Stop the presses! 0.2% of Hillary's voters are rallying. Nevermind the election 4 months ago where Hillary lost.
Trump is an idiot. He'll likely be impeached. I just think the media hyping up these rallies with a few hundred thousand people is a little silly so close to an actual election where 100 million people voted.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
The king has purchased real State from orange bafoon..
But let's talk about Obama like good little lemmings, because that's what Trump wants us to talk about...... amirite?
Tweeted less than 90 minutes ago:
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hahaha! Don't you guys hate Obama? Gosh, I know I hate Obama. Hillary too.