Anonymous wrote:Every day, more confirmation that Trump is delusional but surrounded by enablers.

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.

A FISA warrant IS action. You think if the FBI discovered reason to gather intelligence on Trump's campaign they should have just filed it away and done nothing? Or is it that you think Obama should have been tweeting about it?

Anonymous wrote:Trump has lost his mind. Obama doesn't tap phones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?

Again, just because you don't know it doesn't mean they and Obama don't know it. I'm sure they have plenty and they're just working on building an airtight mountain of evidence knowing they get one shot at convincing congress to impeach. They're making it impossible to deny any of this.

That is one hell of a conspiracy theory.

Um, hardly. It's known there's investigations into what's going on. You honestly think it's a leap to believe they're turning stuff up and building a case from those investigations?

I think there are some people who are “planting” false accusations in an effort to discredit this administration.
If there was anything truly nefarious, I think we would know it already, given the huge number of people who are actively working against this president.
Because, if there is something damning there, Trump is truly a genius to keep it hidden this long.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?

Again, just because you don't know it doesn't mean they and Obama don't know it. I'm sure they have plenty and they're just working on building an airtight mountain of evidence knowing they get one shot at convincing congress to impeach. They're making it impossible to deny any of this.

That is one hell of a conspiracy theory.

Um, hardly. It's known there's investigations into what's going on. You honestly think it's a leap to believe they're turning stuff up and building a case from those investigations?

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House.

Counterintelligence investigations examine the connections between American citizens and foreign governments. Those connections can involve efforts to steal state or corporate secrets, curry favor with American government leaders or influence policy. It is unclear which Russian officials are under investigation, or what particular conversations caught the attention of American eavesdroppers. The legal standard for opening these investigations is low, and prosecutions are rare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?

Again, just because you don't know it doesn't mean they and Obama don't know it. I'm sure they have plenty and they're just working on building an airtight mountain of evidence knowing they get one shot at convincing congress to impeach. They're making it impossible to deny any of this.

That is one hell of a conspiracy theory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?

Again, just because you don't know it doesn't mean they and Obama don't know it. I'm sure they have plenty and they're just working on building an airtight mountain of evidence knowing they get one shot at convincing congress to impeach. They're making it impossible to deny any of this.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, please. You think that if they found something, it would be kept under wraps? You don't think anything found wouldn't have been shared with Obama?