Reply to #Towergate WILL be investigated

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "#Towergate WILL be investigated"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Since the PP asked for disproof, I will add comments in BOLD

[quote=Anonymous]Mark Levin's  (very clear) timeline on this scandal:

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied. [b]OK, but you need to add the 30 years of Trump laundering Russian and Iranian money as well as his meetings and connections to Oligarchs from throughout Asia, as well as the ties with Manafort, Stone, Page, Sessions etc.[/b]

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.[b]You are omitting several contacts between Trump campaign and Russians.[/b]

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.[b]You specific meeting with Sessions and then the press and twitter teases from Giuliani and Stone regarding the pending Podesta storm. You are also omitting Stone's video admission that he has backchannels with Julien Assange[/b]

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.[b] Again, you are omitting the relationship between Trump and Alfa bank. Google it[/b]

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.[b]Actually there are plenty of elements of the dossier that have been verified, again, Google is your friend, because you won't see it on brietbart or fox[/b]

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.[b] The NSA sharing rules had been proposed by the GOP, just like the FISC/FISA had been a Bush/GOP initiative. There are reports about the rules being loosened long before January of 2017. Again, google is your friend. You are also omitting the reports that suggest that foreign intelligence has picked up these communications and shared them with the US IC. Further, as has been already discussed, Presidents cannot just order a wiretap on someone. Nixon assured that wall, so if there was a legal surveillance on Trump, it is because a court allowed it[/b]

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.[b]It could have come from foreign sources as easily as it could have been a domestic leak[/b]

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.[b]If there was nothing amiss here, why did Flynn lie and why did he resign? The fact that he is out of the White House should be a red flag[/b]

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.[b]And during the wikileaks scandal, democrats were juming up nd down about the theft of private content by the Russians, but the GOP was more concerned about the content and not the crime. Karma?[/b]

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well. [b]At best, Sessions written and oral testimony was misleading. Given the timing of the meetings with timelines around sanctions and wikileaks, there are suspicions. Again, if there was no impropriety, why did he recuse? That should be a red flag.[/b] [/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics