I wish he would focus on being Potus versus blaming Obama for everything from leaks to wiretapping. I mean focus on making this country Great again.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.
Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?
And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.
So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?
This all smells pretty fishy to me.
That's not how any of this works.
Then, please enlighten us as to how it works.
For starters, the FBI taps phones, not the president.
Second of all, just because you, ignorant American citizen, don't know what they discovered doesn't mean they didn't discover anything.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.
Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?
And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.
So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?
This all smells pretty fishy to me.
That's not how any of this works.
Then, please enlighten us as to how it works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.
Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?
And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.
So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?
This all smells pretty fishy to me.
That's not how any of this works.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
Anonymous wrote:I say Kushner or Bannon crafted that tweet storm to deflect from the news Kushner met with the Ambassador.
Does Trump really think it's knews that the sitting president met with the ambassador in the actual white house? Lol
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
OK. Let's say that the Obama administration had some such evidence. They got the warrant. They tapped the phones. They collected the conversations and such.
Whatever they gathered still exists, unless it was destroyed by the previous administration.
-What did they collect and where is it?
-If it was destroyed, why?
And, if the Obama administration did this, they must not have found anything actionable or incriminating because we would certainly know about it. This is not something they would keep under wraps.
So, we can assume they found nothing actionable. Which begs the question - what was this "sufficient evidence" they had to begin with?
This all smells pretty fishy to me.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
I don't think you need legalese to understand that a FISA warrant is only granted, by a judge, if there's sufficient evidence that a US citizen is working against US interests.
Anonymous wrote:Can someone with legal ease explain this to me and whether if it is true was it legal for Obama to do so?
Anonymous wrote:I wish he would focus on being Potus versus blaming Obama for everything from leaks to wiretapping. I mean focus on making this country Great again.
Anonymous wrote:I say Kushner or Bannon crafted that tweet storm to deflect from the news Kushner met with the Ambassador.
Does Trump really think it's knews that the sitting president met with the ambassador in the actual white house? Lol