Anonymous
03/04/2017 19:29
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. This is the democratic process of a national election we are talking about.
He needs to answer why his government eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign.
To protect Democracy, duh.
Obama was actively campaigning for Hillary. He was a surrogate. It's inappropriate if not illegal conducting surveillance on their opponent in a national election.
At the same time, he was the President. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 19:28
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. This is the democratic process of a national election we are talking about.
He needs to answer why his government eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign.
To protect Democracy, duh.
Obama was actively campaigning for Hillary. He was a surrogate. It's inappropriate if not illegal conducting surveillance on their opponent in a national election.
He was also the POTUS. If P45 had shot a man in Times Square, would you also argue that the FBI had no business investigating it (assuming it was somehow a Federal crime instead of a local one)? I guess that's what he meant when he said he could kill someone and his supporters wouldn't care.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 19:25
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. This is the democratic process of a national election we are talking about.
He needs to answer why his government eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign.
To protect Democracy, duh.
Obama was actively campaigning for Hillary. He was a surrogate. It's inappropriate if not illegal conducting surveillance on their opponent in a national election.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 18:59
Subject: Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The rumor is that the Russians hacked both the RNC and DNC and released the DNC emails to Wikileaks at choice times in 2016. That means they have the GOP emails which can also be released at any time, so it is forcing the GOP Congress to stay in line with the Russians. Again, that is the rumor, so who knows.
You are saying our congress is being blackmailed by Russia?
Not PP. But a number of people have been saying that for a while. I vaguely recall Rubio making a comment sometime during the election about being careful about capitalizing on leaks because the Rs might be the next victims. I did not think, at the time, though, that he was basing it on any actual evidence of having been hacked.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 18:57
Subject: Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump confirmed that he is either deranged or else is in fact the subject of a FISA action. Either one is scary, but if it is the latter, then he is the source of any future leaks and confirmation of the action.
Also, if it is true that there was evidence to grant the wiretap, then that puts Trump squarely at the center of the scandal. All of the others, Flynn, Sessions, Page etc are not going to be patsies to protect Trump.
I would wager that this presidency will be over before the end of the summer. The only question will be if he forces a legal proceeding and/or releases his private security force to fight within the White House to extract him.
I would like to see that happen, but how damning does the evidence has to get before the Republican-controlled House and Senate turn against him? Because right now it's pretty damning, yet Congress is still in lock step behind him. How highly was Nixon regarded by his Congress at the time of his impeachment?
The rumor is that the Russians hacked both the RNC and DNC and released the DNC emails to Wikileaks at choice times in 2016. That means they have the GOP emails which can also be released at any time, so it is forcing the GOP Congress to stay in line with the Russians. Again, that is the rumor, so who knows.
You are saying our congress is being blackmailed by Russia?
Anonymous
03/04/2017 18:41
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. This is the democratic process of a national election we are talking about.
He needs to answer why his government eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign.
To protect Democracy, duh.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 18:38
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Obama can't hide behind the FISA court. This is the democratic process of a national election we are talking about.
He needs to answer why his government eavesdropped the opposing team's campaign.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 17:46
Subject: Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Or even the instigator.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 17:45
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
If the FISA warrant was granted, the burden of proof was met.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
And again, Obama would not have been the decider.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 17:33
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.
Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.
It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.
Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?
What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?
They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.
"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
1) where's your hard evidence that Trump's phone was actually wiretapped by the DOJ?
2) where's your hard evidence that Obama ordered said wiretap, if it happened?
3) where's your hard evidence that DOJ had no evidence to ask for said wiretap, if it happened?
The burden of proof is always on the Obama government's side in this case.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 17:08
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.
"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
Yeah, not clicking on National Review. But if this is a quote from the article, they're working really, really hard.
But the bolded does point out what the Trump administration has to gain by leaking the investigation themselves. It goes quite a way to explain Trump's crazed Twitter rants.
Because the hostile power was tipped off back in December. And the tainted U.S. persons were, too. They just don't know how big the dragnet is and who's already in it.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 16:59
Subject: Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
You know that the FISA grant has been public knowledge since November. I don't understand why Trump or anyone else is just getting to this now?
Look at the Russia thread, it has the information in it from back then.
Look at the Russia thread, it has the information in it from back then.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 16:58
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.
Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.
It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.
Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?
What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?
They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.
"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
1) where's your hard evidence that Trump's phone was actually wiretapped by the DOJ?
2) where's your hard evidence that Obama ordered said wiretap, if it happened?
3) where's your hard evidence that DOJ had no evidence to ask for said wiretap, if it happened?
Anonymous
03/04/2017 16:54
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.
Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.
It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.
Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?
What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?
They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.
"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap
Ah, a partisan opinion piece coming to Trump's rescue. No surprise, they are just fluffing it off without any sound basis for doing so. Problem with that piece is that it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of ALL of the inappropriate contacts the Trump team had with Russia, nor the mounting body of unusual, highly suspicious activity and evidence (7 key Russians mentioned in the dossier murdered thus far since it became public) relating to the KOMPROMAT dossier.
Anonymous
03/04/2017 16:47
Subject: Re:Was it appropriate for Obama to actively investigate presidential campaign during election
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lol at democrats defending this. Nixon did the same exact thing by wiretapping the DNC headquarters and they went ballistic.
Again, Nixon was a candidate. Obama was not and the candidate was not a member of the administration at the time.
It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t a candidate. He was actively campaigning for Clinton. Trump was the opposing party.
If the Trump campaign was wiretapped and if he played any part in it, there is a problem.
Why? If the Trump campaign is involved in something illegal, why do they get a free pass not to be investigated by the FBI? Just because they were running a campaign against Clinton, you think Obama should say, sorry, no investigations of wrongdoing, no matter what the evidence is? What kind of twisted logic is that?
What is the evidence that he has done anything illegal? Rumors?
They have none. It's a total witch hunt. Now we know Trump is actually super clean after all the scrutiny.
"The idea that FISA could be used against political enemies always seemed far-fetched. Now it might not be."
To summarize, it appears there were no grounds for a criminal investigation of banking violations against Trump. Presumably based on the fact that the bank or banks at issue were Russian, the Justice Department and the FBI decided to continue investigating on national-security grounds. A FISA application in which Trump was “named” was rejected by the FISA court as overbroad, notwithstanding that the FISA court usually looks kindly on government surveillance requests. A second, more narrow application, apparently not naming Trump, may have been granted five months later; the best the media can say about it, however, is that the server on which the application centers is “possibly” related to the Trump campaign’s “alleged” links to two Russian banks — under circumstances in which the FBI has previously found no “nefarious purpose” in some (undescribed) connection between Trump Tower and at least one Russian bank (whose connection to Putin’s regime is not described).
That is tissue-thin indeed. It’s a good example of why investigations properly proceed in secret and are not publicly announced unless and until the government is ready to put its money where its mouth is by charging someone. It’s a good example of why FISA surveillance is done in secret and its results are virtually never publicized — the problem is not just the possibility of tipping off the hostile foreign power; there is also the potential of tainting U.S. persons who may have done nothing wrong. While it’s too early to say for sure, it may also be an example of what I thought would never actually happen: the government pretextually using its national-security authority to continue a criminal investigation after determining it lacked evidence of crimes.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443768/obama-fisa-trump-wiretap