FBI wire tapped Manafort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, Obama was running a shadow surveillance program of the Trump campaign for obvious reasons. Only a matter of time before the facts come out and we see the crooks of the 44 administration. This is worse than Watergate.

Tin-foil hat much? This is right out of the Breitbart talking points and has no basis in reality.

[Anonymous]

This story obviously has legs. Trumpkins and trolls are inventing new art forms of pretzels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Truer words have never been posted. The FBI is not Obama and Manafort is not Trump Tower.



True except for the fact that it's not true, LOLz.


The FBI is the Justice Dept, which is the AG, which IS essentially the President.

Manafort is Trump Tower, and therefore Trump, because Manafort is TALKING to Trump!

The President was using all the intel assets available to the executive branch to spy on a political opponent of his preferred successor. It really IS that simple.


Logical extension Inst your strong suit, is it? Poor thing...... I feel so sorry for you.






Ask yourself this: what would your reaction be if you discovered that George W Bush had been using all the resources of the govt to spy on the Obama campaign by wiretapping Valerie Jarrat? Would you REALLY believe that Jarrat was the target of the investigation? Of course not. It's plainly obvious who the intended target is, Jarrat is just a portal to surveil Obama without getting the actual warrant FOR Obama.

So what would your reaction be if the roles were 100% reversed?

We already know the answer.


If Valerie Jarrett had been conspiring with the Russians to fund activities illegally and influence American voters illegally, then I would be glad the IC was doing its job. Why are you justifying or excusing collusion and coordination with the Russians?

+1,000,000
Manafort was under surveillance for his illegal activities with foreign parties, including foreign parties with interests hostile to the United States (such as oligarchs with affiliates under Magnitsky sanctions). The Russians and their Trumpster stooges are going to try to spin this to sound like a domestic political issue---but it about a group of greedy US criminals (Manafort & Trump) conspiring with greedy foreign criminals (Putin & his oligarch henchmen).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Obama was running a shadow surveillance program of the Trump campaign for obvious reasons. Only a matter of time before the facts come out and we see the crooks of the 44 administration. This is worse than Watergate.

Tin-foil hat much? This is right out of the Breitbart talking points and has no basis in reality.

They said the same thing in 1973 during Watergate.

NSA and DNI chiefs who control these programs both said they didn't violate the law yet we keep seeing leaks that are saying otherwise. Who is behind this and its not Breitbart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Obama was running a shadow surveillance program of the Trump campaign for obvious reasons. Only a matter of time before the facts come out and we see the crooks of the 44 administration. This is worse than Watergate.

Tin-foil hat much? This is right out of the Breitbart talking points and has no basis in reality.

They said the same thing in 1973 during Watergate.

NSA and DNI chiefs who control these programs both said they didn't violate the law yet we keep seeing leaks that are saying otherwise. Who is behind this and its not Breitbart.

The leaks are coming from foreign IC not domestic IC. See the difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Obama was running a shadow surveillance program of the Trump campaign for obvious reasons. Only a matter of time before the facts come out and we see the crooks of the 44 administration. This is worse than Watergate.

Tin-foil hat much? This is right out of the Breitbart talking points and has no basis in reality.

They said the same thing in 1973 during Watergate.

NSA and DNI chiefs who control these programs both said they didn't violate the law yet we keep seeing leaks that are saying otherwise. Who is behind this and its not Breitbart.

The leaks are coming from foreign IC not domestic IC. See the difference?

Do you mean when Obama modified EO 12333 less than 2 weeks before leaving office?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?mcubz=1

Yep, its Obama's fault!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mean when Obama modified EO 12333 less than 2 weeks before leaving office?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?mcubz=1

Yep, its Obama's fault!

In hindsight, it is likely that Obama did this specifically to allow the IC to collaborate on what they were seeing from Manafort, Page, Trump(s) and the others. But if you really want to blame anyone, blame W - the Patriot Act is the root of all of this.

But that doesn't absolve the Trump campaign from colluding with Russians and getting swept up in both domestic and foreign SIGINT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you mean when Obama modified EO 12333 less than 2 weeks before leaving office?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?mcubz=1

Yep, its Obama's fault!

In hindsight, it is likely that Obama did this specifically to allow the IC to collaborate on what they were seeing from Manafort, Page, Trump(s) and the others. But if you really want to blame anyone, blame W - the Patriot Act is the root of all of this.

But that doesn't absolve the Trump campaign from colluding with Russians and getting swept up in both domestic and foreign SIGINT.

Why stop at Dubya, blame it on Reagan as he started EO12333.

In reality, 44 did more to disrupt our Constitutional Republic in the last 6 months of office than any previous defeated party in the past. This crash and burn will impact us for years to come and history will look back unfavorable on 44.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Truer words have never been posted. The FBI is not Obama and Manafort is not Trump Tower.



True except for the fact that it's not true, LOLz.


The FBI is the Justice Dept, which is the AG, which IS essentially the President.

Manafort is Trump Tower, and therefore Trump, because Manafort is TALKING to Trump!

The President was using all the intel assets available to the executive branch to spy on a political opponent of his preferred successor. It really IS that simple.


Logical extension Inst your strong suit, is it? Poor thing...... I feel so sorry for you.






Ask yourself this: what would your reaction be if you discovered that George W Bush had been using all the resources of the govt to spy on the Obama campaign by wiretapping Valerie Jarrat? Would you REALLY believe that Jarrat was the target of the investigation? Of course not. It's plainly obvious who the intended target is, Jarrat is just a portal to surveil Obama without getting the actual warrant FOR Obama.

So what would your reaction be if the roles were 100% reversed?

We already know the answer.


If Valerie Jarrett had been conspiring with the Russians to fund activities illegally and influence American voters illegally, then I would be glad the IC was doing its job. Why are you justifying or excusing collusion and coordination with the Russians?

+1,000,000
Manafort was under surveillance for his illegal activities with foreign parties, including foreign parties with interests hostile to the United States (such as oligarchs with affiliates under Magnitsky sanctions). The Russians and their Trumpster stooges are going to try to spin this to sound like a domestic political issue---but it about a group of greedy US criminals (Manafort & Trump) conspiring with greedy foreign criminals (Putin & his oligarch henchmen).

Initially, yes. They found nothing. So ANOTHER warrant had to be created and it was the timing of that second warrant that is highly suspicious.

Especially considering the following: "“The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump,” CNN reported."

Definitely spied upon the campaign and very, VERY bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Obama was running a shadow surveillance program of the Trump campaign for obvious reasons. Only a matter of time before the facts come out and we see the crooks of the 44 administration. This is worse than Watergate.

Tin-foil hat much? This is right out of the talking points and has no basis in reality.

Is Assistant Editor James Freeman of The Wall Street Journal good enough as a source of public information? Here's a portion of what he writes/WSJ published on this matter, with beg of permission to WSJ given dirth of MSM interest:

...This means the wiretapping was authorized more than ten months ago and perhaps more than a year ago. It was presumably a tough decision for a judge to issue a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling the administration to spy on someone connected with the presidential campaign of its political adversaries.

One would presumably only approve such an order if the request presented by the executive branch was highly compelling and likely to produce evidence that the subject of the wiretap was in fact working with Russia to disrupt U.S. elections. Roughly a year later, as the public still waits for such evidence, this column wonders how this judge is feeling now, especially now that CNN has reported that at least two of its three sources believe the resulting evidence is inconclusive.

One would also presume—or at least hope—that seeking to wiretap associates of the leader of the political opposition is not an everyday occurrence in any administration. At the very least, it seems highly unlikely that such a decision would be made by a mid-level official. CNN notes, “Such warrants require the approval of top Justice Department and FBI officials, and the FBI must provide the court with information showing suspicion that the subject of the warrant may be acting as an agent of a foreign power.”

It seems reasonable for the public to know exactly which officials made this decision and who else they consulted or informed of their surveillance plans. Was the President briefed on the details of this investigation?

And as for the information showing suspicion, where did the FBI come up with that? A September 7 column from the Journal’s Kim Strassel raises disturbing questions, based on recent events and a Washington Post story from last winter. Ms. Strassel writes:

The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation took a sharp and notable turn on Tuesday, as news broke that it had subpoenaed the FBI and the Justice Department for information relating to the infamous Trump “dossier.” That dossier, whose allegations appear to have been fabricated, was commissioned by the opposition-research firm Fusion GPS and then developed by a former British spook named Christopher Steele. ..

...Oddly, even though CNN is the source of this week’s news, the media outlet seems less interested in President Obama’s knowledge of the surveillance activities that occurred on his watch and against his political adversaries than in how President Trump has described them. CNN’s scoop doesn’t even mention Mr. Obama except in the context of Mr. Trump’s accusations of wiretapping against the former president that appeared on Twitter in March. CNN has followed up with another story saying that Mr. Trump’s accusations have still not been proven.

That’s true, although Mr. Trump’s argument may be getting stronger. And whatever Donald Trump’s tweets say, Americans deserve to know how our government came to spy on people associated with the presidential campaign of the party out of power.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/did-obama-know-about-comeys-surveillance-1505852932#comments_sector

[Anonymous]

It's all Obama's fault that Trump was talking to Manafort and Manafort was talking to Russians.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

I'll wait till Mueller issues his report before I go questioning what the FISA court did or whether there is conclusive evidence. But the idea that the INDEPENDENT COURT and the INDEPENDENT IC and the foreign IC are all wrong on this is mind boggling and truly require mental gymnastics to dispel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll wait till Mueller issues his report before I go questioning what the FISA court did or whether there is conclusive evidence. But the idea that the INDEPENDENT COURT and the INDEPENDENT IC and the foreign IC are all wrong on this is mind boggling and truly require mental gymnastics to dispel.

FISA warrants are signed by the Attorney General of the United States, who under President Obama was....Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The same AG Lynch who met Bill Clinton on that infamous tarmac the day before Comey's announcement on candidate Hillary Clinton.

Independent? Not so much.

[Anonymous]

.This means the wiretapping was authorized more than ten months ago and perhaps more than a year ago. It was presumably a tough decision for a judge to issue a secret warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enabling the administration to spy on someone connected with the presidential campaign of its political adversaries.

This is spin. Manafort may not have been connected with the campaign anymore. And DID have ties to Russian interests in Ukraine. Maybe not such a tough decision.

One would presumably only approve such an order if the request presented by the executive branch was highly compelling and likely to produce evidence that the subject of the wiretap was in fact working with Russia to disrupt U.S. elections. Roughly a year later, as the public still waits for such evidence, this column wonders how this judge is feeling now, especially now that CNN has reported that at least two of its three sources believe the resulting evidence is inconclusive.

Well we haven't seen the evidence, we don't know who CNN sources are, and we do know that three of them thought it was conclusive. And the other two may not have seen all the evidence the judge had. So discounting the judgement of the judge, in favor of two (of five) unnamed sources, seems like a stretch to me.

One would also presume—or at least hope—that seeking to wiretap associates of the leader of the political opposition is not an everyday occurrence in any administration.

One would hope that leading chanting crowds in calling for the imprisonment of a political opponent is not an everyday occurrence. Or attacking US allies, while praising adversaries. Or meeting with reps of foreign powers to get info on an opponent. Or calling on a foreign govt to share hacked info. Lots of very unusual things happened in 2016.

At the very least, it seems highly unlikely that such a decision would be made by a mid-level official.

Unless of course Comey was specifically trying to avoid having this turned into a political football, in precisely the way this WSJ editor is attempting to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll wait till Mueller issues his report before I go questioning what the FISA court did or whether there is conclusive evidence. But the idea that the INDEPENDENT COURT and the INDEPENDENT IC and the foreign IC are all wrong on this is mind boggling and truly require mental gymnastics to dispel.

FISA warrants are signed by the Attorney General of the United States, who under President Obama was....Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The same AG Lynch who met Bill Clinton on that infamous tarmac the day before Comey's announcement on candidate Hillary Clinton.

Independent? Not so much.

Do you know what else is not so much? The likelihood that Manafort was colluding with the Russians with the knowledge and approval of Trump. If Manafort isn't talking to Russians in a manner that raised the antennae of the foreign and domestic intelligence communities, none of this would be an issue, now would it?