#Towergate WILL be investigated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like they are baiting Comey at this point.

But why? If Trump is innocent there'd be no need to bait anyone. Or make accusations about surveillance.

Or lie about contact with Russians.

There would be no need to be spinning this at all.

I am pp and I agree it makes no sense. I will say that he is impulsive to a degree that most normal to high functioning adults cannot begin to relate to and I think we're often left trying to retrofit a motive to what was simply a failure of his frontal lobes to inhibit some rash idea/tweet.

Or it's possible that Trump really doesn't know what's going on. I mean, if he looks this erratic and unhinged to the outside world, I imagine it's even worse close up.

To me, it seems more likely that his advisers are only giving him what they want him to tweet about. Shift the focus to Obama so his supporters have something to bite into and the IC will come out with what they know.

But, like so many other decisions, it was an error in judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the allegations will become part of his panel's investigation. The committee 'will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates,' Nunes' statement read.

While on the Senate side, Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said 'I’m sure that this matter will be a part of that inquiry,' during a discussion on Fox News Sunday.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4283584/White-House-asks-Congress-look-wire-tapping-claims.html#ixzz4aU6umnHM

Things are not looking good for Barack Obama.

Things are not looking good for someone, that's for sure. Can you guess who?

The question is not whether the wiretaps were legal. The question is whether or not they continued to tape even when they found nothing. What's damning is Obama relaxing the rules on how the information can be viewed and used two weeks before he left office.

Dems are walking back their statements to keep themselves from being caught in the web. Interesting times.

I listened to Clapper on MTP yesterday and what I heard him saying was that the rules were relaxed so that intelligence already gathered could be shared in investigation. The concern was that if only one entity had the intelligence, it could easily disappear after Trump was sworn in. The word he used when talking about relaxing the rules on collected intelligence was preserve.

I also heard him say that evidence of collusion was not included in his report to Obama and Trump in January. I'll have to go back and listen to it again, but I could swear he said it twice: not included in his report. That doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

So what's damning is Trump's concern about surveillance of his Tower of Sauron. Clapper stated it plainly several times: there was no FISA warrant. If Trump heard the report that there was Russian interference, but no evidence of his campaign's involvement, why would he be so worried as to make an unfounded claim that his offices had been under surveillance?

You know Clapper denied the existence of FISA warrants, right?

Yes. Go back and read the bolded in my post. Chuck Todd asked him more than once and he said it emphatically. No FISA warrant while he was in charge.

He also said his report included no evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with Russians. So why would Trump be worried that there was surveillance - legal or otherwise?

Clasper said that he hoped he would be aware of any such warrant or order and that to the best of his knowledge there was no warrant or order.

That is not the same as definitively stating that no warrant or order existed. Period.

So, either Clapper was lying on national television (unlikely) or there was no FISA warrant.

The question remains: why would Trump be concerned that his offices were under surveillance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the allegations will become part of his panel's investigation. The committee 'will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates,' Nunes' statement read.

While on the Senate side, Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said 'I’m sure that this matter will be a part of that inquiry,' during a discussion on Fox News Sunday.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4283584/White-House-asks-Congress-look-wire-tapping-claims.html#ixzz4aU6umnHM

Things are not looking good for Barack Obama.

Things are not looking good for someone, that's for sure. Can you guess who?

The question is not whether the wiretaps were legal. The question is whether or not they continued to tape even when they found nothing. What's damning is Obama relaxing the rules on how the information can be viewed and used two weeks before he left office.

Dems are walking back their statements to keep themselves from being caught in the web. Interesting times.

I listened to Clapper on MTP yesterday and what I heard him saying was that the rules were relaxed so that intelligence already gathered could be shared in investigation. The concern was that if only one entity had the intelligence, it could easily disappear after Trump was sworn in. The word he used when talking about relaxing the rules on collected intelligence was preserve.

I also heard him say that evidence of collusion was not included in his report to Obama and Trump in January. I'll have to go back and listen to it again, but I could swear he said it twice: not included in his report. That doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

So what's damning is Trump's concern about surveillance of his Tower of Sauron. Clapper stated it plainly several times: there was no FISA warrant. If Trump heard the report that there was Russian interference, but no evidence of his campaign's involvement, why would he be so worried as to make an unfounded claim that his offices had been under surveillance?

You know Clapper denied the existence of FISA warrants, right?

Yes. Go back and read the bolded in my post. Chuck Todd asked him more than once and he said it emphatically. No FISA warrant while he was in charge.

He also said his report included no evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with Russians. So why would Trump be worried that there was surveillance - legal or otherwise?

Clasper said that he hoped he would be aware of any such warrant or order and that to the best of his knowledge there was no warrant or order.

That is not the same as definitively stating that no warrant or order existed. Period.

So, either Clapper was lying on national television (unlikely) or there was no FISA warrant.

The question remains: why would Trump be concerned that his offices were under surveillance?

You assume Clapper knows all. So there is no basis for your statement.

He said nothing more than "I don't know". I know I wasn't told anything about it. "

[Anonymous]

So how was it figured out that Flynn talked about sanctions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how was it figured out that Flynn talked about sanctions?

IC intercepted encrypted communications between him and the Russian ambassador as part of the 24/7 surveillance we conduct on all foreign ambassadors located here in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how was it figured out that Flynn talked about sanctions?

IC intercepted encrypted communications between him and the Russian ambassador as part of the 24/7 surveillance we conduct on all foreign ambassadors located here in the United States.

Splitting babies, are we?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how was it figured out that Flynn talked about sanctions?

IC intercepted encrypted communications between him and the Russian ambassador as part of the 24/7 surveillance we conduct on all foreign ambassadors located here in the United States.

Splitting babies, are we?

DP, and no. Nice try, but this distinction matters. Also, remember it's all you law-and-order Rs who are so hell-bent on loosening standards of evidence so anything and everything is admissible...should it come to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how was it figured out that Flynn talked about sanctions?

IC intercepted encrypted communications between him and the Russian ambassador as part of the 24/7 surveillance we conduct on all foreign ambassadors located here in the United States.

If there was no FISA warrant and a US citizen was involved wouldn't they have to drop the call. Unless it intelligence is coming from another foreign country can we use that as evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House Intelligence Committee chair, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the allegations will become part of his panel's investigation. The committee 'will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party's campaign officials or surrogates,' Nunes' statement read.

While on the Senate side, Intelligence Committee member, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said 'I’m sure that this matter will be a part of that inquiry,' during a discussion on Fox News Sunday.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4283584/White-House-asks-Congress-look-wire-tapping-claims.html#ixzz4aU6umnHM

Things are not looking good for Barack Obama.

Things are not looking good for someone, that's for sure. Can you guess who?

The question is not whether the wiretaps were legal. The question is whether or not they continued to tape even when they found nothing. What's damning is Obama relaxing the rules on how the information can be viewed and used two weeks before he left office.

Dems are walking back their statements to keep themselves from being caught in the web. Interesting times.

I listened to Clapper on MTP yesterday and what I heard him saying was that the rules were relaxed so that intelligence already gathered could be shared in investigation. The concern was that if only one entity had the intelligence, it could easily disappear after Trump was sworn in. The word he used when talking about relaxing the rules on collected intelligence was preserve.

I also heard him say that evidence of collusion was not included in his report to Obama and Trump in January. I'll have to go back and listen to it again, but I could swear he said it twice: not included in his report. That doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist.

So what's damning is Trump's concern about surveillance of his Tower of Sauron. Clapper stated it plainly several times: there was no FISA warrant. If Trump heard the report that there was Russian interference, but no evidence of his campaign's involvement, why would he be so worried as to make an unfounded claim that his offices had been under surveillance?

You know Clapper denied the existence of FISA warrants, right?

Yes. Go back and read the bolded in my post. Chuck Todd asked him more than once and he said it emphatically. No FISA warrant while he was in charge.

He also said his report included no evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with Russians. So why would Trump be worried that there was surveillance - legal or otherwise?

Clasper said that he hoped he would be aware of any such warrant or order and that to the best of his knowledge there was no warrant or order.

That is not the same as definitively stating that no warrant or order existed. Period.

So, either Clapper was lying on national television (unlikely) or there was no FISA warrant.

The question remains: why would Trump be concerned that his offices were under surveillance?

You assume Clapper knows all. So there is no basis for your statement.

He said nothing more than "I don't know". I know I wasn't told anything about it. "

He said plenty more than that. I just watched the interview again. It starts at the 34 minute mark of the show.

Clapper said that he "can't speak to other Title III entities of the federal government or state or local entities" but he would know if there was a FISA warrant and there wasn't one.

So my statement stands (he was either lying or there was no FISA) and so does the question that no one wants to answer: why is Trump so worried that surveillance happened? He knows the truth.

Or, it could be that he's concerned about something other than Russian collusion. Maybe there was something more damaging going on. Whatever it was, it wasn't in Clapper's report, so why all the hubbub?

[Anonymous]

Terrific distillation:

http://link.washingtonpost.com/view/54a17bea897e2cf46c0293b45e4mj.8m24/f8390fc4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Terrific distillation:

http://link.washingtonpost.com/view/54a17bea897e2cf46c0293b45e4mj.8m24/f8390fc4

I love these pictures showing the cellophane tape on the backs of Trump's ties. It says everything about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrific distillation:

http://link.washingtonpost.com/view/54a17bea897e2cf46c0293b45e4mj.8m24/f8390fc4

I love these pictures showing the cellophane tape on the backs of Trump's ties. It says everything about him.

That he's a real person? Yeah, that's a horrible thing...

I see a grandfather.

[Anonymous]

I see a man child who uses Scotchtape on his neckties and his grandchildren as props.

[Anonymous]

Which glasses do you people wear?

[Anonymous]