Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

First of all, there is no "proof."  Trump, per usual, made some off the cuff reckless remark that his minions immediately ran with as if it were the Gospel of Jesus Christ himself.   

Secondly, even if Trump Towers were wiretapped, Trump being the head man in this country would certainly understand the way such matters work.   The FBI, independent of the Office of POTUS, would request a warrant that would then have to be granted by a sitting judge, not Obama.  

I don't know if this is what Trump is referring too, but there were two verified FBI FISA applications; one denied and one allowed. I'm not sure if these incidents are what Trump is referring too, but he stated that he had "just learned" that the Obama administration had wiretapped him and the FISA stories have been around a couple of months. There are more than a single agency that can wiretap people and Obama's administration is not above wiretapping his enemies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b6524010df52

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP) and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...gations_of_reporters

There is also another way that Obama or a surrogate can do it; ask a friendly nation to do it for him like the Brits and there is a possibility that someone called Trump from that country to make amends to the Trump administration. There is also the possibility that another country's spy agency caught the spying such as the Mossad and Trump got a warning call.

Whether or not the Obama administration went beyond Nixon or Trump is just being Trump, don't expect any clarifications. Either Sessions will get the chance for payback or Trump will want the event to just go away.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
Stanky posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

First of all, there is no "proof."  Trump, per usual, made some off the cuff reckless remark that his minions immediately ran with as if it were the Gospel of Jesus Christ himself.   

Secondly, even if Trump Towers were wiretapped, Trump being the head man in this country would certainly understand the way such matters work.   The FBI, independent of the Office of POTUS, would request a warrant that would then have to be granted by a sitting judge, not Obama.  

I don't know if this is what Trump is referring too, but there were two verified FBI FISA applications; one denied and one allowed. I'm not sure if these incidents are what Trump is referring too, but he stated that he had "just learned" that the Obama administration had wiretapped him and the FISA stories have been around a couple of months. There are more than a single agency that can wiretap people and Obama's administration is not above wiretapping his enemies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b6524010df52

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP) and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...gations_of_reporters

There is also another way that Obama or a surrogate can do it; ask a friendly nation to do it for him like the Brits and there is a possibility that someone called Trump from that country to make amends to the Trump administration. There is also the possibility that another country's spy agency caught the spying such as the Mossad and Trump got a warning call.

Whether or not the Obama administration went beyond Nixon or Trump is just being Trump, don't expect any clarifications. Either Sessions will get the chance for payback or Trump will want the event to just go away.

You make some valid points and let's be honest, politics is a dirty game.  However, let's not confuse the power of subpoena with wiretapping.    And as Fortune.com reported, a wiretap requested by the FBI would only be granted under the condition that credible evidence suggested ties between Trump operatives and Russian officials.  And that in itself is not only troublesome but **** near frightening.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/03/04/...tapping-fbi-warrent/

 

 

The FISA warrant actually was concerned about Russian bank dealings and the possibility of foreign campaign funds, not spying. And the FBI determined as someone else once said,"There is no "there" there."

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...rovides-no-evidence/

Apparently the FBI targeted a single server in the Trump Tower. I might also note that if someone were really interested in Russian money buying compliance, the wrong candidate was targeted:

Bill and Hillary Clinton received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010.  Who footed the bill?  An investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which boasts deep ties to Russian intelligence.  The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs.  They also took donations from:

  • Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin confidant who gave through his company, Renova Group
  •  Andrey Vavilov, a former Russian government official who was Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of the “nuclear Cluster” at the Russian government’s Skolkovo research facility
  •  Elena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, who apparently gave them money through JSC Inteco, an entity that she controls

Then there is the glaring fact that the Clinton Foundation also scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010. The deal required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, to buy assets that amounted to 20 percent of American uranium.  Rosatom, by the way controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...s-got-free-pass.html

I have no issue in investigating them all.   As I said in a previous post on another topic, it's not a D vs R issue.  It is an issue of allowing Russian influence in our democracy and to me (and should be to all) that is scary.   Now we have the new story about Trump and the pipeline where he has backed off of his "American only steel" to only mean future projects and the pipeline is about to use steel by the company Ersav (sp?) that is partially owned by one of Putin's guys.   

It all, from Trump to Clinton, may turn out to be nothing.   But it is extremely disconcerting to me and I would hope to anyone who favors democratic rule. 

Stanky posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
Stanky posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

First of all, there is no "proof."  Trump, per usual, made some off the cuff reckless remark that his minions immediately ran with as if it were the Gospel of Jesus Christ himself.   

Secondly, even if Trump Towers were wiretapped, Trump being the head man in this country would certainly understand the way such matters work.   The FBI, independent of the Office of POTUS, would request a warrant that would then have to be granted by a sitting judge, not Obama.  

I don't know if this is what Trump is referring too, but there were two verified FBI FISA applications; one denied and one allowed. I'm not sure if these incidents are what Trump is referring too, but he stated that he had "just learned" that the Obama administration had wiretapped him and the FISA stories have been around a couple of months. There are more than a single agency that can wiretap people and Obama's administration is not above wiretapping his enemies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b6524010df52

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP) and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...gations_of_reporters

There is also another way that Obama or a surrogate can do it; ask a friendly nation to do it for him like the Brits and there is a possibility that someone called Trump from that country to make amends to the Trump administration. There is also the possibility that another country's spy agency caught the spying such as the Mossad and Trump got a warning call.

Whether or not the Obama administration went beyond Nixon or Trump is just being Trump, don't expect any clarifications. Either Sessions will get the chance for payback or Trump will want the event to just go away.

You make some valid points and let's be honest, politics is a dirty game.  However, let's not confuse the power of subpoena with wiretapping.    And as Fortune.com reported, a wiretap requested by the FBI would only be granted under the condition that credible evidence suggested ties between Trump operatives and Russian officials.  And that in itself is not only troublesome but **** near frightening.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/03/04/...tapping-fbi-warrent/

 

 

The FISA warrant actually was concerned about Russian bank dealings and the possibility of foreign campaign funds, not spying. And the FBI determined as someone else once said,"There is no "there" there."

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...rovides-no-evidence/

Apparently the FBI targeted a single server in the Trump Tower. I might also note that if someone were really interested in Russian money buying compliance, the wrong candidate was targeted:

Bill and Hillary Clinton received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010.  Who footed the bill?  An investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which boasts deep ties to Russian intelligence.  The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs.  They also took donations from:

  • Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin confidant who gave through his company, Renova Group
  •  Andrey Vavilov, a former Russian government official who was Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of the “nuclear Cluster” at the Russian government’s Skolkovo research facility
  •  Elena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, who apparently gave them money through JSC Inteco, an entity that she controls

Then there is the glaring fact that the Clinton Foundation also scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010. The deal required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, to buy assets that amounted to 20 percent of American uranium.  Rosatom, by the way controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...s-got-free-pass.html

Foreign money, foreign influence=The Clintons and Obama.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

First of all, there is no "proof."  Trump, per usual, made some off the cuff reckless remark that his minions immediately ran with as if it were the Gospel of Jesus Christ himself.   

Secondly, even if Trump Towers were wiretapped, Trump being the head man in this country would certainly understand the way such matters work.   The FBI, independent of the Office of POTUS, would request a warrant that would then have to be granted by a sitting judge, not Obama.  

You are correct in that this appears, and I say appears, to be a remark made without sources but it is absolutely no difference than what the Democrats are doing with the accusations of collusion between Trump and his campaign and the Russians, exactly the same, only the media sure covers it differently and in all cases an assumption is that Trump is lying or guilty and Democrats are innocent and pure.  CNN (Counterfeit News Network) within hours after the Trump accusation story broke had and was reporting (as if an investigation had been done and finished and found no fault on Obama's part)  See Story at the top of the comment window.  Is there no better evidence of Liberal BIAS in the Media?

There is sooo much hypocrisy and outright hypocritical attacks on Trump and his people that there is, from my opinion, no precedent in history.  In fact this even surpasses the Nixon era so I'm sure Trump is extremely upset about what's going on as evidenced by excluding CNN, the New York Times, and others from a press briefing which outraged them.  It's as if there is open and active war going on between the media and Trump. 

Take for instance the witch hunt against Jeff Sessions regarding his testimony about not talking with the Russians on behalf of the Obama Campaign.  That was the context of the question or what Sessions saw as the context as being a senator and in his Senatorial position it was within his job to talk and have discussions with Russians and other nations ambassadors and representatives.  Democrats are attempting to make something out of nothing all while conveniently forgetting that they had absolutely NO PROBLEM at all with the outright deliberate lies that Erik Holder did with regard to Fast & Furious and lying under oath or his choosing not to prosecute voting abuses by the Black Panthers or any Black group from grievances during the 2008 campaign .  No problem at all with Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton secretly a week before Hillary, a person under investigation, was questioned without putting her under oath and dismissing the investigation all together.

All the Democratic and liberal cries for investigations and wanting resignations all without ANY evidence yet they are all holy and mighty against Trump for essentially doing the exact same thing.  

I've never seen as much outright hostility between government officials and the media or seen liberals so unhinged before.  There are people, liberals, calling for overthrowing the government and participating in a coup or establishing one to take over the Government any way possible, never mind the Constitution.   IF there was evidence Trump did something and if he had to step down or be impeached they say nothing less and a new election would be tolerated never mind the Constitutional plan to handle it because they will not be satisfied unless they can pick the exact (Democrat/liberal) to be in power. 

If there is guilt then handle it according to the constitution and the law but liberals and Democrats seem bent on not caring about either.  It's dangerous and embarrassing as well as a threat to our Nation.  In many cases it's not more than just extreme (to the highest power) sore losing about the election.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • mceclip0
Last edited by gbrk

So a banner of "Trump falsely accuses" is media bias?  It seems that is, in fact, exactly what he has done.  Doesn't excuse some things democrats have done, nor have I ever implied such.   But the vilification of the media by Trump has led people to discount real journalism.   And yes, I think CNN is real news, as I begrudgingly admit Fox News is.   There is a large difference between editorials and news stories.   Editorials at Fox have a heavy right wing bend to them as editorials at CNN have a heavy left wing bend to them.  This does not discount news.   However, Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and multiple others are simply salacious quasi-news organizations with an agenda that's paramount to factual reporting.  

You are right about one thing, the hostility between the WH and the media.  However, let's not pretend like the White House has not been the agitator.   When our President goes on television, in front of the whole world and says factual stories are "fake news" and tries to single out particular news organizations in attempt to discredit the media, it can only have negative consequences.   A free press is the strongest tool we have to counter balance misuse of power.   You may not like stories being printed, but that doesn't make then untrue just as Trump boldly claiming "fake news" no more makes it fake news than you or I claiming it without some shred of proof.  

Trump has already had two people associated with his campaign proven to have some contact with Russian operatives.  Now, was it innocent and unrelated?  Perhaps so.  Did it mean Trump and his campaign actively sought to undermine our election?  Not necessarily.  But to state "no proof" is short-sighted at best and dishonest at worst.    The biggest problem being if it was so innocent, and they had nothing to hide, why did Mr. Sessions at first deny the allegations, only later to say he misunderstood a direct and plainly stated question?   

I am not going to go back and forth over this because it's always the same thing on these forums.  Those who vote Republican think no one with a [R] beside their name can do no wrong.  Those who vote Democrat think no one with a [D] beside their name can do no wrong.  I enjoy banter and exchanging ideas and news stories, but this will inevitably devolve into name calling and more than one near stroke mentioning Obama or Clinton.  Too many see the world in a very narrow prism and we can't get out of our on way quick enough to be open to the idea that just because we support something doesn't mean it's always above board and right.

Ya'll keyboard pundits can have at it.  Debate shows have gotten so popular with screaming and yelling and demonizing the other side, no one in society knows how to properly speak about politics without resorting to the same nonsense.   The only problem is, you don't get ratings on a message board or in real life, you just look like an arse.  I am sure Best will soon appear and throw out a "so's your old man" even though that's irrelevant to the conversation at hand or maybe Jack will show up and bestow upon us some of that bountiful southern colloquial racism.  Have a good time with that. 

giftedamateur posted:
Stanky posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:
Stanky posted:
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

First of all, there is no "proof."  Trump, per usual, made some off the cuff reckless remark that his minions immediately ran with as if it were the Gospel of Jesus Christ himself.   

Secondly, even if Trump Towers were wiretapped, Trump being the head man in this country would certainly understand the way such matters work.   The FBI, independent of the Office of POTUS, would request a warrant that would then have to be granted by a sitting judge, not Obama.  

I don't know if this is what Trump is referring too, but there were two verified FBI FISA applications; one denied and one allowed. I'm not sure if these incidents are what Trump is referring too, but he stated that he had "just learned" that the Obama administration had wiretapped him and the FISA stories have been around a couple of months. There are more than a single agency that can wiretap people and Obama's administration is not above wiretapping his enemies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b6524010df52

In 2013, the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder, came under scrutiny from the media and some members of Congress for subpoenaing phone records from the Associated Press (AP) and naming Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...gations_of_reporters

There is also another way that Obama or a surrogate can do it; ask a friendly nation to do it for him like the Brits and there is a possibility that someone called Trump from that country to make amends to the Trump administration. There is also the possibility that another country's spy agency caught the spying such as the Mossad and Trump got a warning call.

Whether or not the Obama administration went beyond Nixon or Trump is just being Trump, don't expect any clarifications. Either Sessions will get the chance for payback or Trump will want the event to just go away.

You make some valid points and let's be honest, politics is a dirty game.  However, let's not confuse the power of subpoena with wiretapping.    And as Fortune.com reported, a wiretap requested by the FBI would only be granted under the condition that credible evidence suggested ties between Trump operatives and Russian officials.  And that in itself is not only troublesome but **** near frightening.

 

http://fortune.com/2017/03/04/...tapping-fbi-warrent/

 

 

The FISA warrant actually was concerned about Russian bank dealings and the possibility of foreign campaign funds, not spying. And the FBI determined as someone else once said,"There is no "there" there."

On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...rovides-no-evidence/

Apparently the FBI targeted a single server in the Trump Tower. I might also note that if someone were really interested in Russian money buying compliance, the wrong candidate was targeted:

Bill and Hillary Clinton received large sums of money directly and indirectly from Russian officials while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  Bill Clinton was paid a cool $500,000 (well above his normal fee) for a speech in Moscow in 2010.  Who footed the bill?  An investment firm in Moscow called Renaissance Capital, which boasts deep ties to Russian intelligence.  The Clinton Foundation itself took money from Russian officials and Putin-connected oligarchs.  They also took donations from:

  • Viktor Vekselberg, a Putin confidant who gave through his company, Renova Group
  •  Andrey Vavilov, a former Russian government official who was Chairman of SuperOx, a research company that was part of the “nuclear Cluster” at the Russian government’s Skolkovo research facility
  •  Elena Baturina, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, who apparently gave them money through JSC Inteco, an entity that she controls

Then there is the glaring fact that the Clinton Foundation also scored $145 million in donations from nine shareholders in a Canadian uranium company called Uranium One that was sold to the Russian government in 2010. The deal required the approval of several federal government agencies, including Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency, to buy assets that amounted to 20 percent of American uranium.  Rosatom, by the way controls the Russian nuclear arsenal.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...s-got-free-pass.html

Foreign money, foreign influence=The Clintons and Obama.

Exactly! If they were serious about investigating foreign influence and money they would be all over the clintons and obama. Muzzies put obama in office and thought they had another muzzie shill going in right behind him! Why the left has such a love affair with the muzzies is beyond me, unless they think they can "control" them while they use them. Smart folks know better.

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

I have no issue in investigating them all.   As I said in a previous post on another topic, it's not a D vs R issue.  It is an issue of allowing Russian influence in our democracy and to me (and should be to all) that is scary.   Now we have the new story about Trump and the pipeline where he has backed off of his "American only steel" to only mean future projects and the pipeline is about to use steel by the company Ersav (sp?) that is partially owned by one of Putin's guys.   

It all, from Trump to Clinton, may turn out to be nothing.   But it is extremely disconcerting to me and I would hope to anyone who favors democratic rule. 

Didn't back off the US steel only.  That was for new projects, heard him state so on TV.  The pipeline from Canada was an off and on project for years.  The steel pipe line was purchased years ago. 

a canadian pipeline across the US using british steel and very few american jobs.. yep, another campaign promise kept by trump.. woo hoo.. lets put american jobs firs... seco.. thir.. fouth.. making america fourth again!!!

russia canada britain america... if this happened in obama's presidency.... every conservative on these forums would be coming unhinged instead of making excuses. but, you can't beat those alternative facts.

 

the biggest problem with republicans is they're so scared of liberals.. they'd rather give america over to the russians than let a liberal ever be president. fear of  liberals is going to destroy the republicans just when they had their chance to show they could join the 21st century. instead, we're headed to the 19th.

Last edited by Crash.Override
MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

No Trump never said it was for new projects.  You could, if it fits your political narrative, infer that he said that, but he was very explicit that only US Steel would be used.  Not that "US steel would be used once we use up foreign steel on hand."  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...te-trump-pledge.html

 

"The Keystone XL oil pipeline won't use American steel in its construction, despite what President Donald Trump says.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Friday that's due to language in a presidential directive Trump issued in January.

"The way that executive order is written, it’s specific to new pipelines or those that are being repaired, Sanders said. "And since this one is already currently under construction, the steel is already literally sitting there, it would be hard to go back. But I know that everything moving forward would fall under that executive order."

The directive applies to new pipelines or those under repair. Sanders said it would be hard to do an about-face on Keystone because it's already under construction and the steel has been acquired. "

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...te-trump-pledge.html

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

I don't doubt using American steel for the keystone would be difficult considering the current construction phase, which is why he should not have said it.   Again, Trump showing he is not very well versed in politics or just completely unaware of what is going on.  Regardless of my understanding of the hurdles therein, he still said it and a lot of people believed him.   That being said, my largest issue was not the fact that he is not able to stand by his word, but the fact that the company being used for the current steel has an owner with close ties to Putin, since we were talking about Russian politics mixed with American Politics.

Like I stated, I heard him say that the present projects would be exempt when he signed the executive order, I referenced, in January.  There's a lot going on and one may easily miss much.

And I am calling BS.   Even Fox News never reported he said that.   And even if he did say that, then why come right back and state the opposite?  This leads me to two possible conclusions.   Trump outright purposely lied when he made the statement, or Trump seriously has no bleeping clue what is in the executive orders he signs.   Both are very troubling. 

MonkeysUncleByMarriage posted:

And I am calling BS.   Even Fox News never reported he said that.   And even if he did say that, then why come right back and state the opposite?  This leads me to two possible conclusions.   Trump outright purposely lied when he made the statement, or Trump seriously has no bleeping clue what is in the executive orders he signs.   Both are very troubling. 

Two statements about two separate items.  Most of us can keep two competing ideas in our minds at once.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×