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.

You need to understand - and this is important - the President cannot simply say to the FBI, "you need to conduct surveillance on Donald Trump." There has to be probably cause, and it has to be the FBI/DOJ going to the judicial branch with evidence to grant the authority. There are checks and balances and it doesn't and cannot come from the President.

Maybe the bigger question you should be asking, rather than blaming Obama, is what evidence did the DOJ have such that the judicial branch gave the authority to tap Trump? During the summer, all of the Trump supporters said that the method for the Wikileaks wasn't important, it was the content. In that vein, if you want to be consistent, the content here, as it relates to the Trump campaign and administration, the money connections and whatever quid pro quo, is what is of significance.

And in this case, we are talking about the integrity of our republic, our election and our freedom.

Do you want to ensure that our election process was sound and that our politicians are not compromised?

You don't know what you're talking about.

FISA Act on Page 169 of the 9th edition.



§1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and

Anonymous wrote:Obama wiretaps journalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Department_of_Justice_investigations_of_reporters

Anonymous wrote:

Do you get paid to call the wiretapping false? Did you ask for specific evidence about the alleged collusion when reading unsubstantiated stories from CNN and NY Times? This Russian hysteria has been going on for almost a year. So far Tom Cotton, Paul Ryan and Chris Coons have all said publicly they have not found any evidence of collusion. So it's nothing but a witch hunt at this point.

As it turns out, the real scandal is the Obama administration's abuse of power. It needs to be investigated with the same vigor.

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.

You need to understand - and this is important - the President cannot simply say to the FBI, "you need to conduct surveillance on Donald Trump." There has to be probably cause, and it has to be the FBI/DOJ going to the judicial branch with evidence to grant the authority. There are checks and balances and it doesn't and cannot come from the President.

Maybe the bigger question you should be asking, rather than blaming Obama, is what evidence did the DOJ have such that the judicial branch gave the authority to tap Trump? During the summer, all of the Trump supporters said that the method for the Wikileaks wasn't important, it was the content. In that vein, if you want to be consistent, the content here, as it relates to the Trump campaign and administration, the money connections and whatever quid pro quo, is what is of significance.

And in this case, we are talking about the integrity of our republic, our election and our freedom.

Do you want to ensure that our election process was sound and that our politicians are not compromised?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be the responsibility of any administration that had reason to believe a foreign power could be interfering with our domestic affairs. I don't understand what people would want him to do differently.

What was the probable cause? "Reason to believe" is not going to cut it to secure a FISA warrant. You need specific evidence. So the warrant could be secured illegally.

Podesta and his brother have ties to Russians. Why not on Hillary?

The idiocy is strong in this one.

Trump made up the bugging as a distraction from sessions lies. Do you get paid to pretend it happened?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be the responsibility of any administration that had reason to believe a foreign power could be interfering with our domestic affairs. I don't understand what people would want him to do differently.

What was the probable cause? "Reason to believe" is not going to cut it to secure a FISA warrant. You need specific evidence. So the warrant could be secured illegally.

Podesta and his brother have ties to Russians. Why not on Hillary?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be the responsibility of any administration that had reason to believe a foreign power could be interfering with our domestic affairs. I don't understand what people would want him to do differently.

What was the probable cause? "Reason to believe" is not going to cut it to secure a FISA warrant. You need specific evidence. So the warrant could be secured illegally.

Podesta and his brother have ties to Russians. Why not on Hillary?

Anonymous wrote:It would be the responsibility of any administration that had reason to believe a foreign power could be interfering with our domestic affairs. I don't understand what people would want him to do differently.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.