Judge Nap: Did Obama Spy on Trump?

[Brian4Liberty]

Did Obama Spy on Trump? (http://www.judgenap.com/post/did-obama-spy-on-trump)
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano - Published on Mar 16, 2017


The question of whether former President Barack Obama actually spied on President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign and transition has been tantalizing Washington since President Trump first made the allegation nearly two weeks ago. Since then, three investigations have been launched -- one by the FBI, one by the House of Representatives and one by the Senate. Are the investigators chasing a phantom, or did this actually happen?

Here is the back story.

Obama would not have needed a warrant to authorize surveillance on Trump. Obama was the president and as such enjoyed authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to order surveillance on any person in America, without suspicion, probable cause or a warrant.

FISA contemplates that the surveillance it authorizes will be for national security purposes, but this is an amorphous phrase and an ambiguous standard that has been the favorite excuse of most modern presidents for extraconstitutional behavior. In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon used national security as a pretext to deploying the FBI and CIA to spy on students and even to break in to the office of the psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg, one of his tormentors.

FISA was enacted in the late 1970s to force the federal government to focus its surveillance activities -- its domestic national security-based spying -- on only those people who were more likely than not agents of a foreign government. Because FISA authorizes judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to make rules and establish procedures for surveillance -- essentially lawmaking -- in secret, the public and the media have been largely kept in the dark about the nature and extent of the statute and the legal and moral rationale for the federal government's spying on everyone in the U.S.

The mass spying that these judges have ruled FISA authorizes is directly counter to the wording, meaning and purpose of FISA itself, which was enacted to prevent just what it has in fact now unleashed.

We now know indisputably that this secret FISA court -- whose judges cannot keep records of their own work and have their pockets and briefcases checked by guards as they enter and leave the courthouse -- has permitted all spying on everyone all the time.
...
But if Obama did order the NSA to prepare transcripts of Trump's conversations last fall under the pretext of national security -- to find out whether Trump was communicating with the Russians would have been a good excuse -- there would exist somewhere a record of such an order. For that reason, if Obama did this, he no doubt used a source on which he'd leave no fingerprints.

Enter James Bond.

Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ -- a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms -- has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.

Thus, when senior American intelligence officials denied that their agencies knew about this, they were probably being truthful. Adding to this ominous scenario is the fact that three days after Trump's inauguration, the head of GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, abruptly resigned, stating that he wished to spend more time with his family.

I hope the investigations of Trump's allegation discover and reveal the truth -- whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn't exist.

For how much longer will we have freedom?
...
More: http://www.judgenap.com/post/did-obama-spy-on-trump

[enhanced_deficit]

Untill full investigations are completed across all applicable jurisdictions, probaby no one in public sphere knows for sure at this stage.

Although Snowden's leaks were shocking, Obama had said this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?416968-Obama-Nobody-is-Listening-To-Your-Calls&


Public will have to decide who is more credible & honest.

[Anti Federalist]

According to Alex Jones and on Drudge, they claim to have proof that it was done, but no transcripts.

Routing around to foreign intel agencies is old news, that is ECHELON, and us conspiracy kooks have been hollering about that for 30 years now.

[Anti Federalist]

NSA Documents Prove Surveillance of Donald Trump & His Family

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documents-prove-surveillance-on-donald-trump-and-alex-jones/

Bombshell discovery shows targets of NSA's "Project Dragnet"

Jerome Corsi | Infowars.com - March 20, 2017

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Infowars.com have obtained credible information from law enforcement sources regarding individual records of U.S. citizens under National Security Agency (NSA) electronic surveillance in the years 2004 through 2010 – a database that suggests both Donald J. Trump and Alex Jones were under illegal, unauthorized government monitoring during those years.

Michael Zullo, formerly the commander and chief investigator of the Cold Case Posse (CCP), a special investigative group created in 2006 in the office of Joseph M. Arpaio, formerly the sheriff in Maricopa County, an Arizona State Certified Law Enforcement Agency, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, provided sections of the database to Infowars.com.

The electronic surveillance database, provided to Zullo by a whistleblower in 2013, was apparently created by the NSA as part of the NSA’s illegal and unconstitutional Project Dragnet electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens, first revealed by news reports published in 2005, as further documented by the revelations of whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013.

Sheriff Arpaio and Chief Investigator Zullo have identified dozens of entries at various addresses, including both Trump Tower in New York City and Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, under which Donald Trump was apparently under NSA electronic surveillance from 2004, during President George W. Bush’s term of office, through 2009, the first year of President Obama’s presidency.

[Anti Federalist]

I hope the investigations of Trump's allegation discover and reveal the truth -- whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn't exist.

He just described the "deep state" which some say doesn't even exist.


For how much longer will we have freedom?

LOL - C'mon Andy, you know better than that.

We haven't had anything close to "freedom" since the close of WW2.

It was determined by that same deep state at the time, that freedom was too dangerous for us Mundanes to have.

[TheTexan]

Noone cares if Trump was spied on as part of some nation wide spying effort that spied on basically everyone in the country. That's old news, like so 2 years ago.

They can spy on the whole country all they want, but if Obama specifically targeted Trump for spying, thats over the line

[Brian4Liberty]

Noone cares if Trump was spied on as part of some nation wide spying effort that spied on basically everyone in the country. That's old news, like so 2 years ago.

They can spy on the whole country all they want, but if Obama specifically targeted Trump for spying, thats over the line

Ah, of course. Spying on everyone is good, it's only inappropriate when political opponents read, listen, or view it.

[Brian4Liberty]

NSA Documents Prove Surveillance of Donald Trump & His Family

https://www.infowars.com/nsa-documents-prove-surveillance-on-donald-trump-and-alex-jones/

Bombshell discovery shows targets of NSA's "Project Dragnet"
...

Michael Savage was talking about this yesterday, as his address was on the surveillance list.

[Zippyjuan]

FBI and Justice Department say they have zero evidence that Obama or anybody else wiretapped Trump.

http://time.com/4706720/james-comey-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretap/


FBI Director James Comey Says There's 'No Evidence' Obama Wiretapped Donald Trump

The Department of Justice and the FBI have "no evidence" to support President Trump's unfounded and widely-dismissed claim that Barack Obama wiretapped him, FBI Director James Comey said Monday.

Speaking at a hearing of the House Intelligence Committee, Comey confirmed what top Republican lawmakers, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Obama's camp representatives have said about Trump's claims, which were first tweeted earlier this month.

"With respect to the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior Administration, I have no information that supports those tweets and we have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey said. "The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components. The Department has no information that supports those tweets."

Comey reiterated that any wiretapping of a U.S. citizen would require a "rigorous, rigorous process that involves all three branches of government" and has been in place since the 1970s. He said that "no president could" unilaterally order that kind of wiretapping.

[Zippyjuan]

Napster's claims the GCHQ tapped Trump have been denied too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-wiretapping-claims-nsa-director-mike-rogers-denies-gchq-asked-spy-trump-tower-a7639841.html


Donald Trump wiretapping claims: NSA director denies GCHQ was asked to spy on Trump Tower

The head of America’s National Security Agency (NSA) has denied claims the intelligence organisation asked Britain's GCHQ to spy on Donald Trump when he was running for president.

Admiral Mike Rogers was questioned on claims that the UK spy agency was involved in monitoring Trump Tower.

Asked at US Congressional hearings into the matter if he had requested British intelligence to intervene, Admiral Rogers said: "No sir, nor would I, that would be expressly against the construct of the Five Eyes agreement."

The Five Eyes agreement is a system of intelligence sharing between the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

He denied there was any involvement by the British and said he agreed with GCHQ’s assessment of the claims as “nonsense” and “utterly ridiculous”.

[Zippyjuan]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/gchq-denies-wiretap-claim-trump-obama


GCHQ dismisses 'utterly ridiculous' claim it helped wiretap Trump

British intelligence officials have denied an allegation that the UK helped former president Barack Obama “wiretap” Donald Trump during the 2016 election.

The claim was repeated by the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, on Thursday and dismissed as “utterly ridiculous” by a GCHQ spokesperson.

The spokesperson added in a statement: “Recent allegations made by media commentator judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wiretapping’ against the then president-elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

This week, Napolitano, Fox News judicial analyst, claimed during an interview on the network that three intelligence sources confirmed to him that the Obama administration used GCHQ to spy on Trump so that there would be “no American fingerprints on this”.

Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, quoted Napolitano’s allegation in an effort to validate Trump’s unfounded claim that Obama tapped his phones last year.

The president finds himself increasingly alone in his defence of his wiretapping claims. On Thursday, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate intelligence committee joined their counterparts on the House intelligence committee in the conclusion that they had seen no evidence to support the president’s accusation.

If Trump has actual evidence, he should present it. His intelligence agencies can't find it. His FBI director can't find it. His Justice Department (which would have had to authorize it) can't find any evidence.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcG_Vl9WoAAgAQA.jpg

[dannno]

FBI and Justice Department say they have zero evidence that Obama or anybody else wiretapped Trump.

http://time.com/4706720/james-comey-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretap/

Who wiretapped Flynn?

[TER]

Lol, I don't trust Comey, the Justice Department, or you Zippy. Sad for you your candidate Hillary didn't win. But like many of the past fake news posts you have posted here, I think in time you once again will have egg on your face.

[shakey1]

Perhaps, hopefully, wikileaks can shed some light on this soon.

[Zippyjuan]

Lol, I don't trust Comey, the Justice Department, or you Zippy. Sad for you your candidate Hillary didn't win. But like many of the past fake news posts you have posted here, I think in time you once again will have egg on your face.

1) I didn't vote for Hillary (or Trump)- she wasn't "my candidate".

2) these statements came from people hired by Trump and in positions to know and have access to any such evidence. If they are biased, they should be biased for Trump yet they say they have no evidence supporting Trump's claim. Trump is the one with egg on his face. If he actually does have evidence, why has he not presented a single iota of it?

[TER]

1) I didn't vote for Hillary (or Trump)- she wasn't "my candidate".

Sorry, but taking into account your history of lies and deception, I don't believe you.


2) these statements came from people hired by Trump and in positions to know and have access to any such evidence. If they are biased, they should be biased for Trump yet they say they have no evidence supporting Trump's claim. Trump is the one with egg on his face. If he actually does have evidence, why has he not presented a single iota of it?

I don't know why he doesn't. Maybe he made it up out of complete air (something I doubt). Maybe he was given false information (very possible), or maybe he is using it as his insurance policy (my guess).

Either way, in the end, you will have egg on your face as you usually do on account of your habitual deception.

[Brian4Liberty]

FBI and Justice Department say they have zero evidence that Obama or anybody else wiretapped Trump.

http://time.com/4706720/james-comey-donald-trump-barack-obama-wiretap/

Semantics and sophistry.

Every honest observer knows that Trump is just parroting what he hears on Fox news. The real question is are the accusations made by people like Judge Nap accurate?

And as someone else already posted, we are not taking anything at face value that is said by Comey or Rogers or your favorite left-wing establishment propaganda outlets.

[TER]

Semantics and sophistry.

Every honest observer knows that Trump is just parroting what he hears on Fox news. The real question is are the accusations made by people like Judge Nap accurate?

And as someone else already posted, we are not taking anything at face value that is said by Comey or Rogers or your favorite left-wing establishment propaganda outlets.

This

[TheCount]

And as someone else already posted, we are not taking anything at face value that is said by Comey or Rogers or your favorite left-wing establishment propaganda outlets.Yeah! But unsourced third-hand reports? Those are legit.

[Zippyjuan]

Semantics and sophistry.

Every honest observer knows that Trump is just parroting what he hears on Fox news. The real question is are the accusations made by people like Judge Nap accurate?

And as someone else already posted, we are not taking anything at face value that is said by Comey or Rogers or your favorite left-wing establishment propaganda outlets.

That is a scary thing in a leader. He accepts rumor without verifying it.

The White House distances themselves from Judge Nap's claims too.


“That was a statement made by a very talented lawyer on Fox,” Trump said, “and so you shouldn’t be talking to me, you should be talking to Fox.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/fox-news-reportedly-benches-andrew-napolitano-wiretap-claims-article-1.3003867

[TER]

Yeah! But unsourced third-hand reports? Those are legit.

With the widespread corruption in government and their biased media outlets, unsourced third-hand reports have just as much legitimacy, especially when good people (Rand Paul, the Judge, etc) are there making the case.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That is a scary thing in a leader. He accepts rumor without verifying it.




Why do liberals use words like "scary" and "terrifying" for the most mundane things?

[Zippyjuan]

Why do liberals use words like "scary" and "terrifying" for the most mundane things?

The accusation is serious- not mundane. If there is evidence, Trump seems to be the only person who has actually seen it. His spokespeople are unable to give specifics (and their statements keep changing). His FBI director hasn't seen it. Members of Congress have not seen it- even those in his own party and on the Justice Committee as well as the Speaker of the House. The Justice Department hasn't seen it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah! But unsourced third-hand reports? Those are legit.

Are you talking about the constant stream of unsourced rumors, accusations and innuendos from the left-wing establishment propaganda media?

[Brian4Liberty]

Why do liberals use words like "scary" and "terrifying" for the most mundane things?

He was literally shaking when he heard about it, right before his head literally exploded.

[Zippyjuan]

Are you talking about the constant stream of unsourced rumors, accusations and innuendos from the left-wing establishment propaganda media?

Like Trump's unsourced rumor that Obama wiretapped him?

[Brian4Liberty]

Like Trump's unsourced rumor that Obama wiretapped him?

Yeah, the left really hates it when someone plays their game. Their heads literally explode when someone engages in a bit of turnabout.

[otherone]

Their heads literally explode when someone engages in a bit of turnabout.

If it was only that easy.

http://geekologie.com/2013/06/28/titanic-head-explosion.gif

[shakey1]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0su41NnaZDs/Tt9UcNMx76I/AAAAAAAAADo/HvJ1rzGxAQQ/s220/jerusalem-homerheadexplode.gif

[TheCount]

Are you talking about the constant stream of unsourced rumors, accusations and innuendos from the left-wing establishment propaganda media?Yes.

Mysteriously, within the space of a month unsourced rumors went from fake news to the official view of the executive branch. I wonder why?

[Zippyjuan]

Yes.

Mysteriously, within the space of a month unsourced rumors went from fake news to the official view of the executive branch. I wonder why?

Actually it was within minutes of seeing or hearing a "fake news" report Trump started tweeting on it.

Now Trump is trying to blame Obama for leak on Flynn: http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/donald-trump-james-comey/


Rebuffed by Comey's testimony, Trump tweet teases new theory

After the FBI director said he had no information to back up a conspiracy theory pushed by President Donald Trump on Twitter, Trump took to Twitter to tease something new.

The official presidential Twitter account noted Monday that FBI Director James Comey declined to say before a House panel whether he briefed President Barack Obama on former national security adviser Mike Flynn's contacts with Russian operatives.

The response amounted to Trump's first direct public response to Comey's testimony, in which he also confirmed the Department of Justice was looking into potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russian government. Comey also said he was unaware of any evidence supporting Trump's allegations that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign.

"FBI Director Comey refuses to deny he briefed President Obama on calls made by Michael Flynn to Russia," said the tweet, which was sent out shortly after 12:30 p.m. ET.

It is unclear if Trump sent out the tweet or ordered it. The account says it is managed by Trump's social media manager, Dan Scavino.

The tweet suggests Obama -- and by extension Comey -- could have been the source of leaked information about meetings between Flynn and Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak that eventually led to Flynn's resignation. There's no evidence to back up that suggestion, either.

Never admit you are wrong. Always be on the attack- it keeps the opposition off- balance.

[TheCount]

Actually it was within minutes of seeing or hearing a "fake news" report Trump started tweeting on it.That's not what I'm talking about.



I'm against the people that make up stories and make up sources. They shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name. Let their name be put out there. Let their name be put out. A source says that Donald Trump is a horrible, horrible human being — let them say it to my face. Let there be no more sources. And remember this, and not in all cases. I mean, I had a story yesterday written about me in Reuters by a very honorable man that was a very fair story. There are some great reporters around, they are talented and honest as the day is long; that is great. But there are some terrible, dishonest people that do a tremendous disservice to our country, and to our people.

They are very dishonest people, and they shouldn't use sources. They should put the name of the person. You will see stories dry up like you've never seen before. You have no idea how bad it is because if you are not part of the story — and I put myself in your position sometimes because many of you, you're not part of the story — and if you're not part of the story, you know, then you sort of know if you are part of the story, you know what they're saying is true or not.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/24/president_trump_fake_news_media_making_up_anonymou s_wh_sources.html


It was less than a month ago that Trump gave this speech at CPAC about how unsourced news is the enemy of the American people and he's against people who engage in those sorts of tactics. But the moment that there's some unsourced, completely unsubstantiated nonsense which aligns with his worldview, he's tweeting it to the American people and ordering his mouthpieces to defend it as fact.

That's the kind of person that Trump is. He only opposes things right up until the moment that they could benefit him, and then he will embrace the thing or tactic that he's decried up until that moment. If anyone attempts to call him out on it, then the excuses and pretzel-logic are pulled out in his defense.

[dannno]

I really like issues like this, it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Ender and CaptUSA I hope you are keeping up with this, and checking your alliances.

[Zippyjuan]

He is mostly worried about leaks- which have been coming from his own people. He wants to know who they are.

http://fortune.com/2017/02/25/trump-anonymous-media-sources/


Trump Condemns Anonymous Sources as Staff Demands Anonymity


President Donald Trump has unloaded on the news media for using anonymous sources — just hours after members of his own staff insisted on briefing reporters only on condition their names be concealed.

Unleashing a line of attack that energized an enthusiastic crowd at the nation's largest gathering of conservative activists, Trump said Friday that unethical reporters "make up stories and make up sources."

"They shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name," he declared. "Let their name be put out there."




The president has chafed at a number of anonymously sourced stories, including numerous reports describing contacts between his campaign advisers and Russian intelligence agents, which the White House has sharply disputed.

However, members of his White House team regularly demand anonymity when talking to reporters. That was the case Friday morning when Trump officials briefed reporters on chief of staff Reince Priebus' contact with top FBI officials concerning the Russia reports.

[dannno]

The White House distances themselves from Judge Nap's claims too.


Yes, The Judge can't be trusted :rolleyes:



Yeah! But unsourced third-hand reports? Those are legit.

Yes, The Judge can't be trusted :rolleyes:




2) these statements came from people hired by Trump and in positions to know and have access to any such evidence. If they are biased, they should be biased for Trump yet they say they have no evidence supporting Trump's claim. Trump is the one with egg on his face. If he actually does have evidence, why has he not presented a single iota of it?



He is mostly worried about leaks- which have been coming from his own people. He wants to know who they are.





I hope the investigations of Trump's allegation discover and reveal the truth -- whatever it is. But the lesson here is terribly serious. We face the gravest threat to personal liberty since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 proscribed criticism of the government. We have an unelected, unnamed, unaccountable elite group in the intelligence community manipulating the president at will and possessing intimate, detailed knowledge about all of us that it can reveal. We have statutes that have given the president unconstitutional powers that have apparently been used. And we have judges on secret courts facilitating all this as if the Constitution didn't exist.

For how much longer will we have freedom?
...
More: http://www.judgenap.com/post/did-obama-spy-on-trump


Zippy, you might actually want to read the OP before making ridiculous comments.

We have deep state operatives in our midst.

[TheTexan]

Ah, of course. Spying on everyone is good, it's only inappropriate when political opponents read, listen, or view it.

Yes, the privacy of his confidential calls and private meetings should be respected. The only people who should have access to it are the thousands of contractors who need access.

[H. E. Panqui]

..in a show titled 'there is no good guy,' an unsophisticated and drunken crowd jeers and cheers at the various dancing puppets...strung along by an absolute ma$ter of thorough di$traction...whilst a hideous array of pickpocket$ and backstabbers work the crowd from behind...

...it perplexes me as to how anyone can defend or apologize for these miserable republicans and democrats...ugh...

[Brian4Liberty]

That's not what I'm talking about.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/24/president_trump_fake_news_media_making_up_anonymou s_wh_sources.html


Well, Trump did name his source, and his source got fired. :p

[TheCount]

Well, Trump did name his source, and his source got fired. :pJudge Nap was not the the source. He made a claim using an anonymous source. The thing Trump says people shouldn't do, and which makes them enemies of America.

Trump was quoting an unsourced claim by Judge Nap. According to Trump's own words, he's against people who do what Nap did.

[Gumba of Liberty]

If there was no spying on Trump or his team then...

1. Who gave the order to put Flynn under surveillance?

2. How was Flynn's conversation intercepted from Trump Tower (where he made the call)?

3. Who leaked Flynn's (benign) conversation to the media?

4. Where did the New York Times get evidence for its January 20th "Wiretapping" Story?

5. How does Clapper conclude on January 20th that he has zero evidence linking Trump to the Russian government without doing an investigation? How do you conclude an investigation without surveillance?

To tell you the truth, I don't care at all that the government spied on Trump. They've been spying since FDR. I'm just happy he called them out on it and people are waking up.

Remember the old neocon/republican talking point, "If you got nothing to hide you got nothing to fear."? Here's another nail for that coffin.

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump should have named the New York Times as his source...


NY Times First Reported Trump was Wiretapped Back in January
By Martin Armstrong - March 21, 2017

The New York Times print story on the front page of January 20th, 2017 read: “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides”. Of course, now, the New York Times is trying to downplay that story simply because Trump said Obama had wiretapped his campaign. Since “wiretapped data” was being used to investigate President Trump’s associates and they are going over those conversations, it seems self-evident that someone has the recorded conversations. INFOWARS is reporting that have evidence now of the wiretapping from a law enforcement source. How is it possible to go over conversations to investigate if any of Trump’s people spoke to Russians without recording those conversations?
...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/03/martin-armstrong/ny-times-first-reported-trump-wiretapped/

[Gumba of Liberty]

Judge Nap was not the the source. He made a claim using an anonymous source. The thing Trump says people shouldn't do, and which makes them enemies of America.

Trump was quoting an unsourced claim by Judge Nap. According to Trump's own words, he's against people who do what Nap did.

In the initial report, was the Judge permitted to release the names of his sources by Fox?

Since Friday, has the Judge had the opportunity, on Fox, to identify his sources?

Would Fox allow the Judge to speak with the media and release his sources on suspension without termination?

No, no and no. Anyone who thinks that Judge Napolitano would get on National TV and claim that a foreign government assisted the Obama Adminstration in the surveillance of Trump & his team without proof doesn't know the Judge.

Give it a little time. The truth with come out and the Judge will be vindicated, as always. Until then the Judge better ditch his tracking device (cell phone) and stay with an old friend.

[TheCount]

In the initial report, was the Judge permitted to release the names of his sources by Fox?

Since Friday, has the Judge had the opportunity, on Fox, to identify his sources?

Would Fox allow the Judge to speak with the media and release his sources on suspension without termination?Did Trump talk about any of these things in his speech? No. He said that they "should not be allowed" to use anonymous sources.

My comments aren't about the Judge. This is about Trump selectively choosing when he likes and doesn't like the media... when he likes and doesn't like anonymous sources, etc.

[Gumba of Liberty]

Did Trump talk about any of these things in his speech? No. He said that they "should not be allowed" to use anonymous sources.

My comments aren't about the Judge. This is about Trump selectively choosing when he likes and doesn't like the media... when he likes and doesn't like anonymous sources, etc.

Who was the Judge censored by?

The same media organizations that Trump called out for using "unverified" CIA sources.

[dannno]

Anyone who thinks that Judge Napolitano would get on National TV and claim that a foreign government assisted the Obama Adminstration in the surveillance of Trump & his team without proof doesn't know the Judge.

True.




Give it a little time. The truth with come out and the Judge will be vindicated, as always.

Of course it will. And the media won't report it.. Because the media and CPUd will be too busy writing and posting more bullshit.

[CPUd]

True.




Of course it will. And the media won't report it.. Because the media and CPUd will be too busy writing and posting more bullshit.

careful what you wish for

[TheCount]

Who was the Judge censored by?Nobody.

[RPtotheWH]

careful what you wish for

He's not wishing for you to post more Bull$h!t but he knows you will

[CPUd]

He's not wishing for you to post more Bull$h!t but he knows you will

A couple big news days coming up this week

[RPtotheWH]

A couple big news days coming up this week

What are you expecting?

[Zippyjuan]

What are you expecting?

Trump promised big news and facts on the wiretap story would be coming out.

Bill O' Reiley: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/21/bill-oreilly-trump-obama-wiretapping-claims-have-harmed-president-himself/21904161/


Bill O'Reilly: Trump's Obama wiretapping claims have 'harmed the president himself'

Longtime host of FOX News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Bill O'Reilly was critical on Monday of Trump's judgment in accusing former President Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, saying the president would be wise to "embrace only facts in his pronouncements."

FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers provided testimony in a rare public hearing on Monday, offering answers to House Intelligence Committee questions around both Russia's involvement in the 2016 election and possible ties to Trump's campaign, as well as Trump's claim that Obama oversaw a wiretap of his Trump Tower penthouse.

O'Reilly described Monday's hearing, saying "It was clear from the beginnings there was a political agenda, as there always is."




"The accusation that President Obama was actively involved in harming the Trump campaign has now harmed the president himself."

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Why do liberals use words like "scary" and "terrifying" for the most mundane things?



The accusation is serious- not mundane.




So did you change your soiled diaper yet?

[RPtotheWH]

Trump promised big news and facts on the wiretap story would be coming out.

Bill O' Reiley: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/03/21/bill-oreilly-trump-obama-wiretapping-claims-have-harmed-president-himself/21904161/

How many of your posts aren't a link to some news article harping on something about Trump? I am concerned for you, you seem obsessed. It's not healthy.

[Ender]

How many of your posts aren't a link to some news article harping on something about Trump? I am concerned for you, you seem obsessed. It's not healthy.

Uh...you got 153 posts here and most of the recent ones are following Zippy around. I think YOU are obsessed- let it go.

[oyarde]

I must be missing something . Obviously they were spying on Flynn & Trump or Flynn would still have a govt job .

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This is about Trump selectively choosing when he likes and doesn't like the media... when he likes and doesn't like anonymous sources, etc.

Too bad the libs are upset. Oh, boo hoo for you.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

If anyone attempts to call him out on it, then the excuses and pretzel-logic are pulled out in his defense.


Too bad all the libs are twisted up like pretzels. Oh, boo hoo for you!

[Anti Federalist]

I honestly can't believe that this is even a question.

Of course he was under surveillance.

Every single one of us is under surveillance.

[dannno]

Uh...you got 153 posts here and most of the recent ones are following Zippy around. I think YOU are obsessed- let it go.

If I were lurking on here, zippy would make me absolutely incessant. Fortunately I get to post and call him out on his bs.

[Ender]

If I were lurking on here, zippy would make me absolutely incessant. Fortunately I get to post and call him out on his bs.

The hate here makes me absolutely incessant.

If you disagree with someone then have decent dialog about it- the name calling/insults bullshit has certainly reached an all time high since Trump entered the picture.

Is this really what Ron Paul would support?

[dannno]

The hate here makes me absolutely incessant.

If you disagree with someone then have decent dialog about it- the name calling/insults bullshit has certainly reached an all time high since Trump entered the picture.

Is this really what Ron Paul would support?

You think Ron Paul would be stoked about a bunch of stooges for the deep state coming on a website in his name and posting bullcrap?

[MallsRGood]

Nap is a good, moral, and shockingly naive human being...

Really, Even Voluntary Omissions Lack Utility. This Is Only Nonsense: thrice.over.

[dannno]

Nap is a good, moral, and shockingly naive human being...

Really, Even Voluntary Omissions Lack Utility. This Is Only Nonsense: thrice.over.

You are shockingly naive for believing the media and thinking The Judge is wrong.

[MallsRGood]

You are shockingly naive for believing the media and thinking The Judge is wrong.

Steph agrees (that means you're allowed to agree too)!

http://media.giphy.com/media/13k1e8OMVO2a3K/giphy.gif

[Ender]

You think Ron Paul would be stoked about a bunch of stooges for the deep state coming on a website in his name and posting bullcrap?

Very easy to call people "stooges from the deep state" if you don't agree with them. For Trump lovers that would also include Ron Paul.

[RPtotheWH]

Uh...you got 153 posts here and most of the recent ones are following Zippy around. I think YOU are obsessed- let it go.

Are you zips psychiatrist?

[Jamesiv1]

If I were lurking on here, zippy would make me absolutely incessant.

The hate here makes me absolutely incessant.
Merriam Webster:
Definition of incessant
: continuing or following without interruption : unceasing

??

[Jamesiv1]

What I find interesting, is that Trump doesn't seem to give a flip if folks like Bill O'Reilly think he is screwing up. Or anybody who is a mainstream talking head.

He doesn't seem to give a flip if he gets impeached, either. And that makes him unconquerable.

Everyone in Washington, DC knows the intelligence community is spying on everyone, all the time.... With one tweet Trump puts it in the national consciousness, and dominates the news cycle for 2 weeks.

Playing them like a fiddle, he is.

[CPUd]

8D multiverse

[Wooden Indian]

Merriam Webster:
Definition of incessant
: continuing or following without interruption : unceasing

??



Wooden Webster:
Definition of incessant:

Makes babies have 11 toes.

"Ma told him, don't be kissing on yer sister, boy. That's incessant! But she was purty and Jessie had a powerful stirring."

[RJB]

I honestly can't believe that this is even a question.

Of course he was under surveillance.

Every single one of us is under surveillance.

Bingo. This sums up the thread. Trump is no Messiah, but many people's hatred of him are placing them in defense of the indefensible.

[dannno]

Very easy to call people "stooges from the deep state" if you don't agree with them. For Trump lovers that would also include Ron Paul.

How can you not see the difference between Ron Paul and some of the stooges on here for the deep state? Ron Paul makes legitimate complaints about Trump, he doesn't advance the propaganda of the deep state like these stooges here.

Where is the video of Ron Paul talking about how Russia hacked the DNC to change our elections? Where is the video of Ron Paul saying he wants Trump impeached? Where is the video of Ron Paul saying that The Judge is naive or lying or wrong and British intelligence isn't spying on us and Trump wasn't wiretapped??

BUELLER???

[juleswin]

Bingo. This sums up the thread. Trump is no Messiah, but many people's hatred of him are placing them in defense of the indefensible.

Not quite, you see the problem here is that everybody knows that the NSA spies on everybody. Trump is also no messiah or a victim, he has supported these policies through his silence and support for the execution of the one person who provided the evidence of what most of us already suspected. He is part of the problem and when the judge tried to play buddy buddy by trying to say the Obama admin specially targeted him using British intelligence, he got burned. What he said was not the same thing as the govt spies on everybody

Another angle of his story that is even more infuriating is that the white house press secretary cited Napolitano's reporting of he incident like it was true. You have to understand that they must have known if the event actually happened seeing as they now run the country. So if they think it happened, then why are they not releasing the evidence to back him up and if they knew all along that it was a lie, then why give him any more attention? They used him like a dirty rag and tossed him in the dust bin when he started to smell.

The good thing about this whole episode is that all the liberty people who were trying to use the Trump election to boost their anti establishment bona fides would think twice before using their overzealous support of the Trump admin as a mechanism to achieve that goal. I hate it that it happened to him but he was getting a bit out of control with his a** kissing of the Trump admin and he really needed something to calm him down.

[RJB]

Meh. He was spied on. Hillary was spied on. We're all spied on. To me, that's what it comes down to.

Not quite, you see the problem here is that everybody knows that the NSA spies on everybody. Trump is also no messiah or a victim, he has supported these policies through his silence and support for the execution of the one person who provided the evidence of what most of us already suspected. He is part of the problem and when the judge tried to play buddy buddy by trying to say the Obama admin specially targeted him using British intelligence, he got burned. What he said was not the same thing as the govt spies on everybody

Another angle of his story that is even more infuriating is that the white house press secretary cited Napolitano's reporting of he incident like it was true. You have to understand that they must have known if the event actually happened seeing as they now run the country. So if they think it happened, then why are they not releasing the evidence to back him up and if they knew all along that it was a lie, then why give him any more attention? They used him like a dirty rag and tossed him in the dust bin when he started to smell.

The good thing about this whole episode is that all the liberty people who were trying to use the Trump election to boost their anti establishment bona fides would think twice before using their overzealous support of the Trump admin as a mechanism to achieve that goal. I hate it that it happened to him but he was getting a bit out of control with his a** kissing of the Trump admin and he really needed something to calm him down.

[dannno]

Another angle of his story that is even more infuriating is that the white house press secretary cited Napolitano's reporting of he incident like it was true.

It is true. you don't trust the Judge? You really trust the msm? This is PRECISELY the attitude that RJB was complaining about in the post you replied to.




You have to understand that they must have known if the event actually happened seeing as they now run the country. So if they think it happened, then why are they not releasing the evidence to back him up


Did you ever think that is maybe precisely why Obama had British intel do it instead?

[juleswin]

Meh. He was spied on. Hillary was spied on. We're all spied on. To me, that's what it comes down to.

This is true and to all the people like Napolitano who believe in the "deep state", they should know that the deep state is probably the ones who do the spying. The figureheads called the POTUS are just the public face of that shadow group. Obama was spied on when he was running, the same would happen to he next president and so on and so forth.

His mistake was believing that Trump was somehow special and Obama himself was the one ordering the spying on Trump. His failure in this arena should be a lesson to us all.

[juleswin]

It is true. you don't trust the Judge? You really trust the msm? This is PRECISELY the attitude that RJB was complaining about in the post you replied to.





Did you ever think that is maybe precisely why Obama had British intel do it instead?

Well after this whole incident, I consider Andrew Napolitano to be a very gullible and naive as* kisser and he has lost the somewhat unconditional trust I had in him. Now he has lost the ability to convince me with "my sources told me" line. Now I need to see evidence of what he is saying before I take him seriously.

I don't trust the msm but I can generally tell when they are lying. I think the biggest problem with this story is the idea that anyone would get in trouble if they exposed illegal spying activity by the govt to the point that they had to use a British spying agency. The minute I heard this story, I knew it was a lie and the msm had nothing to do with it.

[Ender]

This is true and to all the people like Napolitano who believe in the "deep state", they should know that the deep state is probably the ones who do the spying. The figureheads called the POTUS are just the public face of that shadow group. Obama was spied on when he was running, the same would happen to he next president and so on and so forth.

His mistake was believing that Trump was somehow special and Obama himself was the one ordering the spying on Trump. His failure in this arena should be a lesson to us all.

Exactly my POV.

Pretty sure Obama was spied on as president, as well.

[Ender]

How can you not see the difference between Ron Paul and some of the stooges on here for the deep state? Ron Paul makes legitimate complaints about Trump, he doesn't advance the propaganda of the deep state like these stooges here.

Where is the video of Ron Paul talking about how Russia hacked the DNC to change our elections? Where is the video of Ron Paul saying he wants Trump impeached? Where is the video of Ron Paul saying that The Judge is naive or lying or wrong and British intelligence isn't spying on us and Trump wasn't wiretapped??

BUELLER???

Ron Paul brings all those into question if you ever happen to watch his forum- most the complainers here don't. He never accuses but does bring forth possibilities.

Zippyjuan always posts different POVs; CPUd just posts news; TheCount is just plain sarcasm. No likee? Put 'em on ignore, but the name-calling because someone doesn't love Trump, has got to stop.

[juleswin]

Exactly my POV.

Pretty sure Obama was spied on as president, as well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ZAzu_0YZU

Yup, this stuff has been out there for a while now. Sad that some of the people who should know better think that Trump is somehow special in long history of US intelligence agencies spying on Americans. They don't need to bring in British agencies to do something they have the apparatus already setup in the US to do.

[dannno]

Ron Paul brings all those into question if you ever happen to watch his forum- most the complainers here don't. He never accuses but does bring forth possibilities.

No. He. Doesn't. You are wrong. You are a good guy with good intentions, I don't hate you because you don't like Donald Trump, I hate some of these stooges for the deep state who have a very clear motive. The fact is Ron Paul sticks up for Trump on some of these areas, if he says anything about them. He is always questioning the MSM narrative.

Ron Paul has quite a few complaints about Trump in several different areas, but for example he complains that Trump still has essentially the same foreign policy that we have had, which in a sense is true.. and it is a good thought experiment and worth the discussion. Ron Paul talks about how it is difficult to know who belongs to what group and who they are aligned with, so ultimately a lot of times we just end up bombing a bunch of random people with brown skin. But in another sense, Trump has completely different goals and where I take the discussion is that I believe the outcome with Trump with be much more positive on this front, I believe he will back off and ultimately Ron Paul himself may very well praise Trump in this area one day for the direction he ultimately takes us. This is not in any way contradictory to Ron Paul's message. Ron Paul has never said that Donald Trump won't change his foreign policy or won't ever change his ways in this area, he is simply providing a commentary on what is happening in the present. Ron Paul HAS in fact praised Donald Trump on some of his foreign policy rhetoric, so that is really not unrealistic at all. if you think about it... And if you think about what these other posters are posting more critically, you will find they are EXTREMELY contradictory to Ron Paul's message and what he is talking about on some other fronts.




@Zippyjuan (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=17293) always posts different POVs; @CPUd (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=42199) just posts news; @TheCount (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58229) is just plain sarcasm. No likee? Put 'em on ignore, but the name-calling because someone doesn't love Trump, has got to stop.

When somebody is posting bullcrap for the deep state, ignoring it is the VERY LAST THING I wish to do. But thanks.

[dannno]

Well after this whole incident, I consider Andrew Napolitano to be a very gullible and naive as* kisser and he has lost the somewhat unconditional trust I had in him. Now he has lost the ability to convince me with "my sources told me" line. Now I need to see evidence of what he is saying before I take him seriously.

I don't trust the msm but I can generally tell when they are lying. I think the biggest problem with this story is the idea that anyone would get in trouble if they exposed illegal spying activity by the govt to the point that they had to use a British spying agency. The minute I heard this story, I knew it was a lie and the msm had nothing to do with it.

The stooges for the deep state will help you throw every member of the liberty movement under the bus before they are done if you let them. And they have you convinced they like Ron Paul and freedom.

[undergroundrr]

The stooges for the deep state will help you throw every member of the liberty movement under the bus before they are done if you let them.

I would say the same thing, except I would be talking about Donald trump, Steve Bannon, Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.

[juleswin]

The stooges for the deep state will help you throw every member of the liberty movement under the bus before they are done if you let them. And they have you convinced they like Ron Paul and freedom.


I would say the same thing, except I would be talking about Donald trump, Steve Bannon,[Tom Woods], Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.

I actually agree with you, except that we see have different people as stooges of the deep state. I was just about to say this until undergroundrr beat me to it :)

[undergroundrr]

I would say the same thing, except I would be talking about Donald trump, Steve Bannon, Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.

I should take it further - I would take the word of CPUd, Zippyjuan and TheCount before ANY of those, ANY day.

[RJB]

I should take it further - I would take the word of CPUd, Zippyjuan and TheCount before ANY of those, ANY day.. Yep. Deep state doesn't exist. No one is spied on. Trust the .gov, and the Fed cares about our economic well-being.

[dannno]

I would say the same thing, except I would be talking about Donald trump, Steve Bannon, Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.

...and the Judge?

[dannno]

. Yep,. Deep state doesn't exist. No one is spied on. Trust the .Gov. the Fed cares about our economic well-being.

The derp becoming strong in this thread.

[undergroundrr]

...and the Judge?
juleswin nailed it - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508836-Judge-Nap-Did-Obama-Spy-on-Trump&p=6438277&viewfull=1#post6438277

There's a massive realignment going on. Cynical pragmatists are doing what they gotta do. Those close to power are being warped.

Meanwhile, I'm very proud that Dr. Ron Paul keeps his objectivity, assesses the present with clarity and stays the course for liberty. He's my hero. All those other guys can take a hike.

[undergroundrr]

. Yep. Deep state doesn't exist. No one is spied on. Trust the .gov, and the Fed cares about our economic well-being.

I've read the threads. You're strawmanning.

[RJB]

I've read the threads. You're strawmanning.

Do you know what that word means? I stand by what​ I have posted.

[Anti Federalist]

This is true and to all the people like Napolitano who believe in the "deep state", they should know that the deep state is probably the ones who do the spying. The figureheads called the POTUS are just the public face of that shadow group. Obama was spied on when he was running, the same would happen to he next president and so on and so forth.

Probably?

Of course it is...and to phrase it as "[you] believe in the deep state" is as ridiculous as Shaquille O'Neill saying "you believe in a round earth???"

And it's also obvious that there was something in that surveillance that led the deep state to "trust" O-Bomb-Ya and Shrub before him, and Clinton before him and Shrub Sr. before him.

Something triggered the deep state in Reagan and they shot him to get him in line, and then managed to run drugs and guns through the WH basement.

I still don't know what to make of Trump, but something deep within the system is very upset with the notion of him as president.

Just that alone is enough for me to grant him a pass on a lot of things.

[undergroundrr]

Do you know what that word means? I stand by what​ I have posted.

Yes. I do too.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is true and to all the people like Napolitano who believe in the "deep state", they should know that the deep state is probably the ones who do the spying. The figureheads called the POTUS are just the public face of that shadow group. Obama was spied on when he was running, the same would happen to he next president and so on and so forth.

His mistake was believing that Trump was somehow special and Obama himself was the one ordering the spying on Trump. His failure in this arena should be a lesson to us all.

It is entirely possible for both the "Deep State" to monitor everyone, and for politicians to look for ways to monitor political opponents (or release damaging info, possibly collected by the Deep State). They are not mutually exclusive.

[dannno]

@juleswin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=28857) nailed it - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508836-Judge-Nap-Did-Obama-Spy-on-Trump&p=6438277&viewfull=1#post6438277

There's a massive realignment going on. Cynical pragmatists are doing what they gotta do. Those close to power are being warped.

Lol.. So you believe the mainstream media over the Judge.. Like I said, you people aligning yourselves with the deep state stooges are going to find yourselves in a lot of trouble when you have thrown most of the people in the liberty movement under the bus because the mainstream media told you to do so.. The deep state runs the mainstream media, and you trust them over the Judge.. And you can't fathom why I am calling the people you are aligning yourself with deep state stooges??



Meanwhile, I'm very proud that Dr. Ron Paul keeps his objectivity, assesses the present with clarity and stays the course for liberty. He's my hero. All those other guys can take a hike.

Where has Ron Paul questioned the Judge?? You guys need to stop hiding behind pretending that what these people are espousing has ANYTHING to do with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a deep state stooge, he has not been sticking up for them. All he has been doing is pointing out where Trump is coming up short on the liberty front.. As far as the fight between the establishment deep state and the people, you need to be on the right side here and you are not.

[Brian4Liberty]

You think Ron Paul would be stoked about a bunch of stooges for the deep state coming on a website in his name and posting bullcrap?

He might say let them spew their propaganda, and then you can counter it.

[juleswin]

Probably?

Of course it is...and to phrase it as "[you] believe in the deep state" is as ridiculous as Shaquille O'Neill saying "you believe in a round earth???"

And it's also obvious that there was something in that surveillance that led the deep state to "trust" O-Bomb-Ya and Shrub before him, and Clinton before him and Shrub Sr. before him.

Something triggered the deep state in Reagan and they shot him to get him in line, and then managed to run drugs and guns through the WH basement.

I still don't know what to make of Trump, but something deep within the system is very upset with the notion of him as president.

Just that alone is enough for me to grant him a pass on a lot of things.

I believe in a deep state sort of institution. The institution which has its own army, own black budgets, spying tools, etc etc that is all independent from the executive, the sort of people who vet potential candidates before they are selected to win party nominations. These are the people who I believe do the spying and not Obama or Bush or Clinton. That sentence was talking about the people who believe in the deep state and yet think Obama is the one directing them to spy on any person.

You can always tell someone is compromised by how staunch of an Israeli state supporter they are. Trump is by far the biggest supporter of Israel we have in our govt and that is not good. You also look at his history of supporting wars, the MIC and the intelligence org who spy on us and that doubly counts against him. Lastly you have to look at the swamp creatures he filled his administration with. Almost exclusively neocons and Goldman sacs people, how the deep state can be worried about such a person is beyond me.

I think the biggest head fakes by the establishment is this idea that he is pro Russia and the deep state hates him. Its all theatre which I do not believe.

[undergroundrr]

something deep within the system is very upset with the notion of him as president.

But you don't know what or where or who or how much.

So far, I see no evidence that anybody has done anything to trump that hasn't been done to every world political figure ever. This guy is dished up perfection for the CIA, the welfare state, the MIC (and its buddies the corporate welfare state) who are all just peachy and looking to make record gains thank you.

His hairstyle, his communication conduits and his grammar are the only things that have bothered anybody. There's been no system shake-up, just a run-of-the-mill, typically contentious, transfer from a D POTUS to an R POTUS. The MSM is selling everybody a line that it's topsy-turvy chaos in our government and Anti Federalist of all people is buying it. Wake up!

As long as trump continues to empower the state (the "deep state" obsession is taking everybody's eye off the ball) he gets a pass on NOTHING from where I sit.

[Brian4Liberty]

Well after this whole incident, I consider Andrew Napolitano to be a very gullible and naive as* kisser and he has lost the somewhat unconditional trust I had in him. Now he has lost the ability to convince me with "my sources told me" line. Now I need to see evidence of what he is saying before I take him seriously.

What has happened that would make you suddenly not trust Judge Nap? You don't believe that sources told him this?

[undergroundrr]

As far as the fight between the establishment deep state and the people, you need to be on the right side here and you are not.

Judge Nap has said a lot of good things. He just put out some unsourced stuff and didn't back it up. He's been conferring with trump on a regular basis. I think his perspective is skewed. He's right that trump was spied on. He just doesn't have a good case (yet) that trump is unique in this regard. Read up on J. Edgar Hoover for perspective.

Now, down to business.

You haven't indicated you even know what you mean by the deep state. Nobody ever does.

1. Are you talking about the CIA? trump just handed them carte blanche for drone warfare and who knows what else.
2. Are you talking about the MIC? trump just handed them carte blanche for whatever they want to do in the ME
3. Are you talking about bankers and corporations who feed off the government trough? See points 1 and 2.
4. Are you talking about the Federal Reserve? Silence from trump. He needs it for points 1-3.
5. Are you talking about thousands of administrative staffers? You might have a case if the Executive Branch decides to emasculate itself due to trump's vague, undefined Executive Order. I'll believe that when I see it. Even then, you haven't addressed points 1, 2 & 3.
6. Fill in the blank with whatever else you think is included in the deep state. How is he shaking it up?

The national security state is ground zero for any concept of the deep state that makes any sense. trump is feeding it, already with the bodies of children. Supporting him in this is FILTHY.

You go out of your way to "call out" the relatively few people left on RPF who give trump NO GROUND on this abominable stuff, who are tenacious and persistent in attacking his credibility from any angle. That is a HEROIC thing to do. YOU are the one who's buying into the MSM's narrative that trump is turning the state upside down and going at it with a wrecking ball. Every major action he's taken, every budget proposal buttresses and strengthens the Deep State.

trump has demonstrated clearly that he is the world's number one enemy of liberty and he holds the reins of power of the most powerful nation on earth. Fight him if you have a shred of respect for liberty.

[Madison320]

I must be missing something . Obviously they were spying on Flynn & Trump or Flynn would still have a govt job .

I agree. I don't get it. The FBI says they're investigating Trump, but then they say they're not wiretapping Trump.

[juleswin]

It is entirely possible for both the "Deep State" to monitor everyone, and for politicians to look for ways to monitor political opponents (or release damaging info, possibly collected by the Deep State). They are not mutually exclusive.

This is true but if one believes in the very powerful, king maker deep state that was able to spy on Obama and get away with it, you have to believe that Obama respects it well enough not to interfere in its king making business. Obama in his 8 yrs has done nothing to undermine or expose the deep state, I doubt he started doing it in his last days in office.


What has happened that would make you suddenly not trust Judge Nap? You don't believe that sources told him this?

This incident is what has happened to kill the trust I had in him and yes I believe he read a forum post where some ex intel agent floated the idea and the judge having drank he Trump kool aid ran with the allegation. His judgement to give a fair assessment of Trump and his administration is what I trust the least right now. I think deep down inside, he is still he a sincere principled man.

Related post
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508826-CNN-Consultant-says-he-wasn-t-quot-knowingly-quot-source-for-Napolitano-report

[Madison320]

trump has demonstrated clearly that he is the world's number one enemy of liberty and he holds the reins of power of the most powerful
nation on earth. Fight him if you have a shred of respect for liberty.

I usually agree with you but isn't that a little over the top? It's early and you may end up being right but based on what he's done so far I'd he doesn't even crack the top 1,000,000.

[CPUd]

Lol.. So you believe the mainstream media over the Judge.. Like I said, you people aligning yourselves with the deep state stooges are going to find yourselves in a lot of trouble when you have thrown most of the people in the liberty movement under the bus because the mainstream media told you to do so.. The deep state runs the mainstream media, and you trust them over the Judge.. And you can't fathom why I am calling the people you are aligning yourself with deep state stooges??



Where has Ron Paul questioned the Judge?? You guys need to stop hiding behind pretending that what these people are espousing has ANYTHING to do with Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not a deep state stooge, he has not been sticking up for them. All he has been doing is pointing out where Trump is coming up short on the liberty front.. As far as the fight between the establishment deep state and the people, you need to be on the right side here and you are not.

If the deep state runs the mainstream media, and Nap is on Fox News, would that make Nap a stooge of the deep state?

[dannno]

Judge Nap has said a lot of good things. He just put out some unsourced stuff and didn't back it up.

So you think the Judge is lying? Is that correct? And you believe this because the mainstream media told you he was lying, is that correct?



What has happened that would make you suddenly not trust Judge Nap? You don't believe that sources told him this?







He's been conferring with trump on a regular basis. I think his perspective is skewed.

lol... or maybe the mainstream media (again, run by the deep state) is skewing YOUR perspective? That makes a lot more sense here.




He's right that trump was spied on. He just doesn't have a good case (yet) that trump is unique in this regard. Read up on J. Edgar Hoover for perspective.

Now, down to business.

You haven't indicated you even know what you mean by the deep state. Nobody ever does.

1. Are you talking about the CIA? trump just handed them carte blanche for drone warfare and who knows what else.
2. Are you talking about the MIC? trump just handed them carte blanche for whatever they want to do in the ME
3. Are you talking about bankers and corporations who feed off the government trough? See points 1 and 2.
4. Are you talking about the Federal Reserve? Silence from trump. He needs it for points 1-3.
5. Are you talking about thousands of administrative staffers? You might have a case if the Executive Branch decides to emasculate itself due to trump's vague, undefined Executive Order. I'll believe that when I see it. Even then, you haven't addressed points 1, 2 & 3.
6. Fill in the blank with whatever else you think is included in the deep state. How is he shaking it up?

The national security state is ground zero for any concept of the deep state that makes any sense. trump is feeding it, already with the bodies of children. Supporting him in this is FILTHY.

You go out of your way to "call out" the relatively few people left on RPF who give trump NO GROUND on this abominable stuff, who are tenacious and persistent in attacking his credibility from any angle. That is a HEROIC thing to do. YOU are the one who's buying into the MSM's narrative that trump is turning the state upside down and going at it with a wrecking ball. Every major action he's taken, every budget proposal buttresses and strengthens the Deep State.

trump has demonstrated clearly that he is the world's number one enemy of liberty and he holds the reins of power of the most powerful nation on earth. Fight him if you have a shred of respect for liberty.

Have you ever watched the movie Office Space? Do you remember the consultants Bob and Bob? What did they do when they came in, did they just come in and start getting rid of people or did they hold a performance review and interviews first?

What you don't understand about the deep state is that it is made up of good and bad people, at almost every level. Ultimately it is controlled by bad people, but they have good people convinced to help them do their work, sorta like Ender, except they are in the CIA, FBI, military etc.. Trump is currently holding his performance review of all these individuals and entities. That is why he gave them free reign. That isn't permanent, it is a test. He needs a chance to perform an analysis in-house. At the same time, the deep state is working to remove him from office, but giving them free reign at least keeps them busy on other tasks.

[undergroundrr]

I usually agree with you but isn't that a little over the top? It's early and you may end up being right but based on what he's done so far I'd he doesn't even crack the top 1,000,000.

If he was still a neocon-bankrolling real estate tycoon with a reality show, I'd say I was WAY over the top. A hyper-war POTUS is enemy number one for Planet Earth. No exaggeration. As time goes by, as the national security state grows and war technology increases, the point becomes ever more finely drawn.

[dannno]

If the deep state runs the mainstream media, and Nap is on Fox News, would that make Nap a stooge of the deep state?

You're such a tool.

[CPUd]

Man behind Michelle Obama and John Kerry hoaxes emerges at centre of GCHQ row
Larry C Johnson emerges as key figure in spying allegation controversy


A former CIA officer responsible for previously peddling false allegations played a prime part in the fake claim that Barack Obama secretly asked GCHQ to wiretap Donald Trump, The Independent has learned.

Larry C Johnson, who made bogus charges that Michelle Obama made a racist speech against white people and that former Secretary of State John Kerry had raped women while serving in Vietnam, has emerged as one of the key figures behind what has become an international diplomatic confrontation between the US and UK.

On 6 March, the week after Mr Trump first accused Mr Obama of being responsible for the wiretap, Mr Johnson “revealed” in an interview with Russian state sponsored network Russia Today that there was a conspiracy between US intelligence and “Britain’s own GHCQ (sic)” to derail Donald Trump’s election campaign. He said he had repeated this to Andrew Napolitano, a retired judge, who made it a basis for his own accusation against Mr Obama and GCHQ on Fox News earlier this week. The falsehood was then given further exposure by Sean Spicer, Mr Trump’s spokesman, at a White House briefing, on Thursday.

The revelation about Mr Johnson’s role in the extraordinary affair came as the Trump administration dismissed an account by Theresa May’s official spokesperson that they had apologised and pledged not to repeat the GCHQ claim.

Asked about the issue at a joint press conference with visiting German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Mr Trump replied: “We said nothing. All we did was quote a certain very talented legal mind who was the one responsible for saying that on television, I didn’t make an opinion on it. You shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to Fox.”

Mr Spicer denied reports from No 10 that he had apologised. “I don’t think we regret anything,” he stressed. “As the President said, I was just reading off media reports.”

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News, meanwhile, was busy distancing itself from the “very talented legal mind” Mr Napolitano. Anchor Shepard Smith said “Fox News knows of no evidence of any kind that the now President of the United States was surveilled at any time, anyway. Full stop.”

Mr Napolitano, who knows Mr Trump and has an apartment at Trump International Hotel & Tower in New York, was said to be lying low today. But Mr Johnson came forward to say that he was one of the sources for the GCHQ story. Mr Johnson maintained that his own knowledge of the matter came from the American intelligence community. “It sounds like a Frederick Forsyth novel,” he said.

Mr Johnson has been accused of mixing fact with fiction before. In 2008 he claimed on his blog that a tape existed of Michelle Obama “railing against whitey” at a church. Although he had not seen the tape himself, he said, “five other sources” had and it was being held by the Republicans “to drop at the appropriate time”. No such tape was released and no evidence was ever produced to prove its existence. The Obama campaign’s “Fight the Smears” website declared that the allegations were an invention.

In 2013, in another blog post, Mr Johnson falsely accused John Kerry of sexual assault, claiming that he had “raped some poor Vietnamese woman” in Vietnam. The assertion came from a TV debate in 1971 which had been edited and altered to make Mr Kerry say “I personally raped for pleasure”. When the manipulation was pointed out by readers of the blog he deleted the article. No apology was ever offered.

Meanwhile Rick Ledgett, the deputy director of NSA, the American counterpart of GCHQ, described the claims about Mr Obama and British intelligence as “arrant nonsense”. He pointed that the allegation betrayed “a complete lack of understanding in how the relationship works” between Britain and the US on intelligence.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.html

[undergroundrr]

Trump is currently holding his performance review of all these individuals and entities. That is why he gave them free reign.

IOW trump gave the Deep State free reign because he's against the Deep State.

[CPUd]

IOW trump gave the Deep State free reign because he's against the Deep State.

But he's against them, so he should get a pass.

[undergroundrr]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.html

Anything to this, dannno?

[Madison320]

If he was still a neocon-bankrolling real estate tycoon with a reality show, I'd say I was WAY over the top. A hyper-war POTUS is enemy number one for Planet Earth. No exaggeration. As time goes by, as the national security state grows and war technology increases, the point becomes ever more finely drawn.

Well if you're saying that ever since we've had nuclear weapons and the world's most powerful military, every US president has been the number one enemy of freedom, you might have somewhat of a point. But singling our Trump is premature.

[dannno]

Anything to this, dannno?


He pointed that the allegation betrayed “a complete lack of understanding in how the relationship works” between Britain and the US on intelligence.

This has been disproven numerous times here.

[undergroundrr]

Well if you're saying that ever since we've had nuclear weapons and the world's most powerful military, every US president has been the number one enemy of freedom, you might have somewhat of a point. But singling our Trump is premature.

Allow me the pretense of leaving detente out of it. Only Truman actually used any, and yeah, that guy was evil.

Record increases in droning, remorseless child killing in week 1, proposed record increase in offense spending, unprecedented abdication of command to MIC and CIA make him unique.

He should be fought.

[dannno]

IOW trump gave the Deep State free reign because he's against the Deep State.

Ok, you didn't understand my Bob and Bob analogy. I guess I need to slow down a little bit and explain.

Ron Paul would love to go in and demolish as much of the government as possible, which would be awesome. But Trump is not an anarchist. So he has to be more careful. If you read my post I explained that the deep state is made up of individuals, so Trump has to hold reviews of the individual people and the individual entities before he can make any big decisions.

Does this make more sense? If not, you may not be fit for management type positions, but that's ok. The world needs people who can simply follow instructions as well.

[dannno]

Allow me the pretense of leaving detente out of it. Only Truman actually used any, and yeah, that guy was evil.

Record increases in droning, remorseless child killing in week 1, proposed record increase in offense spending, unprecedented abdication of command to MIC and CIA make him unique.

He should be fought.

Ya, you should go right up on the front lines with the deep state and fight Trump. That's a great idea...

[undergroundrr]

This has been disproven numerous times here.

You ignored the part about Johnson claiming to be Judge Nap's source. And the credibility thereof. I don't claim to know. Just curious if you take this seriously or not.

[dannno]

You ignored the part about Johnson claiming to be Judge Nap's source.

All this tells me is that you trust the mainstream media and some shady intel source over the Judge.



And the credibility thereof. I don't claim to know. Just curious if you take this seriously or not.

I don't take anything from the mainstream media seriously. They can spin yarn, create narratives and make up crap all day long. People like you and CPUd just assume they are telling the truth.

[Brian4Liberty]

He said he had repeated this to Andrew Napolitano, a retired judge, who made it a basis for his own accusation against Mr Obama and GCHQ on Fox News earlier this week.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gchq-michelle-obama-john-kerry-hoax-a7636996.html

Well, if this guy is admitting to being a source, it's no longer a secret. Judge Nap would have to confirm that this guy was a source, and he could also say if there were other sources.

Of course the slant here is to discredit this guy right from the start. I don't know anything about the guy.

Here's some general info:


Johnson worked at the CIA for four years as an analyst, then moved to the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. In 1993, Johnson left government work to join the private sector, "going on to build a dual career as a business consultant and a pundit on intelligence issues."[2] He appeared on television programs such as The News Hour and Larry King Live, giving his commentary.[2]

Views and controversies
Early 1990s to 2008

In numerous writings and interviews in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Johnson deemphasized the threat stemming from terrorism.[3][4][5] In 1998, he commented on Osama bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[6] In later interviews (1999, 2000), Johnson said Americans exaggerated the threaten stemming from bin Laden.[7][8] In July 2001, two months before the September 11 attacks,[2] Johnson wrote a New York Times op-ed entitled, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," arguing that "terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."[5]

In 2003, Johnson said that while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[9]

In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.[10]

Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[11] In a July 2006 post at Daily Kos, Johnson harshly criticized ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer (calling him, among other things, "a vicious little prick") and called Israel's invasion of Lebanon "stupid."[2]

After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying Valerie Plame Wilson (the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson) as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class as Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now! to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_C._Johnson

[Brian4Liberty]

This is true but if one believes in the very powerful, king maker deep state that was able to spy on Obama and get away with it, you have to believe that Obama respects it well enough not to interfere in its king making business. Obama in his 8 yrs has done nothing to undermine or expose the deep state, I doubt he started doing it in his last days in office.

Not sure how that is relevant. Yes, Obama did nothing to expose the Deep State. Did someone say that he did?

This is one thing that Obama did do to enable the use of NSA data against political opponents:


WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data.
...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

[ghengis86]

Y'all saw this gem, right?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/nunes-trump-transition-members-and-possibly-trump-himself-were-under-surveillance-du

"Incidental surveillance" of trump and transition team, November through January

It appears Trump may have been right, again.

Two days after FBI director Comey shot down Trump's allegation that Trump was being wiretapped by president Obama before the election, it appears that president Trump may have been on to something because moments ago, the House Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes, told reporters that the U.S. intelligence community incidentally collected information on members of President Trump's transition team, possibly including Trump himself, and the information was "widely disseminated" in intelligence reports.



As AP adds, Nunes said that President Donald Trump's communications may have been "monitored" during the transition period as part of an "incidental collection."



Nunes told a news conference Wednesday that the communications appear to be picked up through "incidental collection" and do not appear to be related to the ongoing FBI investigation into Trump associates' contacts with Russia. He says he believes the intelligence collections were done legally, although in light of the dramatic change in the plotline it may be prudent to reserve judgment on how "incidental" it was.

"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community collected information on U.S. individuals involved in the Trump transition," Nunes told reporters.

"Details about U.S. persons involved in the incoming administration with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reports."

The information was "legally brought to him by sources who thought we should know it," Nunes said, though he provided little detail on the source.

BREAKING!!! Rep Devin Nunes (Intel Cmte Chmn):
There was "Incidental collection" of @realDonaldTrump thru IC surveillance <- BOMBSHELL
— Eric Bolling (@ericbolling) March 22, 2017
Nunes also said that "additional names" of Trump transition officials had been unmasked in the intelligence reports. He indicated that Trump's communications may have been swept up.


The House Intel Chair said he had viewed dozens of documents showing that the information had been incidentally collected. He said that he believes the information was legally collected. Nunes said that the intelligence has nothing to do with Russia and that the collection occurred after the presidential election.

Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the revelation and will inform the White House later today. Nunes' statement comes after he and other congressional leaders pushed back on Trump's claims that former President Obama had his "wires tapped" in Trump Tower ahead of the election.

Nunes said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the information incidentally collected originated in Trump Tower.

The revelation comes in the wake of the committee's explosive hearing on Monday, at which FBI Director James Comey confirmed that the bureau has been investigating Russia’s election hacking since July, which includes probing possible coordination between members of Trump’s presidential campaign and Moscow.

The meeting represented the panel’s first open hearing on its investigation into Russia’s election meddling and also featured testimony from NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers.


Nunes says the communications of Trump associates were also picked up, but he did not name those associates. He says the monitoring mostly occurred in November, December and January. He added that he learned of the collection through "sources" but did not specify those source

Politico adds that Nunes is going to the White House later Wednesday to brief the Trump administration on what he has learned, which he said came from "sources."

Nunes says he is "bothered" by this. Won't say whether or not intel community spied on Trump et. al. But says he is "concerned."
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) March 22, 2017
While there are no further details, we look forward to how the media narrative will change as a result of today's latest dramatic development.

[TheCount]

"Incidental surveillance" of trump and transition team, November through January

It appears Trump may have been right, again.

This says the opposite of what Trump claimed. If it's true, then it proves him wrong.

[undergroundrr]

Ya, you should go right up on the front lines with the deep state and fight Trump. That's a great idea...

The deep state isn't fighting trump anymore than it did Obama.

[TER]

The deep state isn't fighting trump anymore than it did Obama.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[undergroundrr]

I don't take anything from the mainstream media seriously. They can spin yarn, create narratives and make up crap all day long. People like you and CPUd just assume they are telling the truth.

My skepticism of the MSM is my top indicator that trump is no threat to the status quo.

[AuH20]

844640145584209920

[CPUd]

844656068416491520
https://twitter.com/CHueyBurns/status/844656068416491520

[RPtotheWH]

Boy a lot of smoke coming out of that pile over there:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4339602/There-gov-t-surveillance-Trump-s-transition-team.html

[Anti Federalist]

As long as trump continues to empower the state (the "deep state" obsession is taking everybody's eye off the ball) he gets a pass on NOTHING from where I sit.

He has moved against the state numerous times, from backing out of TPP, to cutting UN funding, to signing EOs that direct the state to default to a position of the citizen being right first, to repealing regulations ranging from environmental to the educating of teachers.

One the whole, I'm pretty impressed, actually, in what he has done and claims to want to do moving forward, and who he has appointed to run/reign in the out of control regulatory state, especially EPA.


His hairstyle, his communication conduits and his grammar are the only things that have bothered anybody. There's been no system shake-up, just a run-of-the-mill, typically contentious, transfer from a D POTUS to an R POTUS. The MSM is selling everybody a line that it's topsy-turvy chaos in our government and Anti Federalist of all people is buying it. Wake up!

See, here is where I get confused:

To listen to the hysterical, autistic screeching from the left, and from some on "our" side, Trump is the worst authoritarian fascist to ever come down the pike, a direct philosophical descendent of Adolf himself, and any day now, at his direction, squads of brownshirts will be fanning out and rounding people up for the ovens.

Keeping in mind that the real brownshirts will be wearing blue, and the system by which to do all that has already been set up, and not by Trump. This is my most problematic issue with him, his devotion to "law and order"...hopefully this has been shaken by the realization that Ed Snowden has been right all long, and the whole nation IS under surveillance.

Then you come along and say it's all smoke and mirrors, nothing is changing, it's "all meet the new boss same as the old boss", which very well may be the case, but the fact of the matter is it cannot be both.

I frankly, would have expected the exact same reaction from the establishment and the government press had Ron Paul actually won.

And I would have expected some of the same initiatives from him as well.

Your mileage may vary of course, but as for me, I already shot my mouth about this prior to the election, I cast my vote for Ron Paul and was shown to be as wrong as possibly could be in prognosticating what was happening in the larger arena.

So, as I've said a million times already, because of being so spectacularly wrong at the outset of all this, I am committed to looking as objectively as I possibly can at what he is doing rather than all the shit flinging coming from all directions.

And so far I'd say it's a solid B.

If that's being asleep or selling out, well, so be it I guess.

[TER]

He has moved against the state numerous times, from backing out of TPP, to cutting UN funding, to signing EOs that direct the state to default to a position of the citizen being right first, to repealing regulations ranging from environmental to the educating of teachers.

One the whole, I'm pretty impressed, actually, in what he has done and claims to want to do moving forward, and who he has appointed to run/reign in the out of control regulatory state, especially EPA.



See, here is where I get confused:

To listen to the hysterical, autistic screeching from the left, and from some on "our" side, Trump is the worst authoritarian fascist to ever come down the pike, a direct philosophical descendent of Adolf himself, and any day now, at his direction, squads of brownshirts will be fanning out and rounding people up for the ovens.

Keeping in mind that the real brownshirts will be wearing blue, and the system by which to do all that has already been set up, and not by Trump. This is my most problematic issue with him, his devotion to "law and order"...hopefully this has been shaken by the realization that Ed Snowden has been right all long, and the whole nation IS under surveillance.

Then you come along and say it's all smoke and mirrors, nothing is changing, it's "all meet the new boss same as the old boss", which very well may be the case, but the fact of the matter is it cannot be both.

I frankly, would have expected the exact same reaction from the establishment and the government press had Ron Paul actually won.

And I would have expected some of the same initiatives from him as well.

Your mileage may vary of course, but as for me, I already shot my mouth about this prior to the election, I cast my vote for Ron Paul and was shown to be as wrong as possibly could be in prognosticating what was happening in the larger arena.

So, as I've said a million times already, because of being so spectacularly wrong at the outset of all this, I am committed to looking as objectively as I possibly can at what he is doing rather than all the shit flinging coming from all directions.

And so far I'd say it's a solid B.

If that's being asleep or selling out, well, so be it I guess.

Best post I have read in a long time. Thank you.

You do not sound to be asleep or to be selling out. You actually sound quite awake and making perfect common sense.

[CPUd]

He has moved against the state numerous times, from backing out of TPP, to cutting UN funding, to signing EOs that direct the state to default to a position of the citizen being right first, to repealing regulations ranging from environmental to the educating of teachers.

One the whole, I'm pretty impressed, actually, in what he has done and claims to want to do moving forward, and who he has appointed to run/reign in the out of control regulatory state, especially EPA.



See, here is where I get confused:

To listen to the hysterical, autistic screeching from the left, and from some on "our" side, Trump is the worst authoritarian fascist to ever come down the pike, a direct philosophical descendent of Adolf himself, and any day now, at his direction, squads of brownshirts will be fanning out and rounding people up for the ovens.

Keeping in mind that the real brownshirts will be wearing blue, and the system by which to do all that has already been set up, and not by Trump. This is my most problematic issue with him, his devotion to "law and order"...hopefully this has been shaken by the realization that Ed Snowden has been right all long, and the whole nation IS under surveillance.

Then you come along and say it's all smoke and mirrors, nothing is changing, it's "all meet the new boss same as the old boss", which very well may be the case, but the fact of the matter is it cannot be both.

I frankly, would have expected the exact same reaction from the establishment and the government press had Ron Paul actually won.

And I would have expected some of the same initiatives from him as well.

Your mileage may vary of course, but as for me, I already shot my mouth about this prior to the election, I cast my vote for Ron Paul and was shown to be as wrong as possibly could be in prognosticating what was happening in the larger arena.

So, as I've said a million times already, because of being so spectacularly wrong at the outset of all this, I am committed to looking as objectively as I possibly can at what he is doing rather than all the shit flinging coming from all directions.

And so far I'd say it's a solid B.

If that's being asleep or selling out, well, so be it I guess.

Where you think that money is going, that he is wanting to cut from other departments?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H3MwOL2BqQ


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecjUsREKMuI

[Anti Federalist]

Where you think that money is going, that he is wanting to cut from other departments?
Yes, I am well aware of that, and this is my other major issue with him: foreign intervention and military buildup.

He's utterly wrong in that course of action, and in pandering to the "law and order" crowd.

So, I oppose those things, which is the only thing my otherwise utterly worthless federal representation is good for.

[UWDude]

MSM is starting to admit, there is a slight, eency meency, tiny little possibility Truump is right, and Obama did order intelligence on him.
To listen to them shamble and admit it, means they aren't quite sure yet if Nunes has actual documents.

The media still buys into the whole Russia facade, because they aren't journalists, they are script reading actors. But the deep state knows it is a ruse and smear campaign, because they are the ones running it, knowing now full well they were mis-led by someone, who promised to mislead them. They thought their surveillance would turn up thousands and thousands of points of irrefutable proof Putin planted Trump. That is how delusional they were. When the evidence came up less a fart in the wind and piss on the hookers, they realized they had been had, and outed themselves.
That is also why they know many leaks, such as vault7, were leaked by insiders.
Which means they know someone, somewhere could have indeed handed Nunes actual, physical FISA papers, as well as a host of other hard copy documents.

Friday, Nunes says he will provide proof. Trump may very well choose Monday to do the same.
BTW, The President is the only office that may reveal any classified document to the public, at his leisure.

Note I said president, not former president working to tear down trump on behalf of the Deep State. Former Presidents are civilians, and have no right to reveal classified documents.

[UWDude]

Ron Paul brings all those into question if you ever happen to watch his forum- most the complainers here don't. He never accuses but does bring forth possibilities.

Zippyjuan always posts different POVs; CPUd just posts news; TheCount is just plain sarcasm. No likee? Put 'em on ignore, but the name-calling because someone doesn't love Trump, has got to stop.

You gonna stop calling people Trumpeteers and Trumpslurpers?

[Ender]

You gonna stop calling people Trumpeteers and Trumpslurpers?

Have never used the word Trumpslurper in my life- and as a musician, Trumpeteers is actually a good word.

[UWDude]

Not quite, you see the problem here is that everybody knows that the NSA spies on everybody.

Apparently the media doesn't know. They are writing it is impossible.

[UWDude]

Trumpeteers is actually a good word.

u huh. sure.

[Ender]

u huh. sure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqNTltOGh5c

[UWDude]

Ender, please. You call for civility, and in the same breath claim it is Trump supporters causing the uncivility.

You are not a fair and impartial judge, nor are you "the mature one" here. You are just playing games to try and advance your own personal agenda and belief system.

Your schtick is old and tired. It is 2017. The internet has been around for 20 years now. Most people see through your schtick.

If you were calling for civility, without blaming Trump for making the environment toxic, I might entertain your sincerity. But I've seen your schlock here long enough to know your sincerity is somewhat uncredible. I'll refer again to when you were trying to claim that you had the inside info on trumps sexual assault accuser (where are those brave justice seekers, anyway?), and telling us the reason we didn't believe them is because sexual assault did not affect us personally in our pesonal lives, but it had yours, so you were the authority on the matter, and you were sure they were telling the truth.

It was just more troll dung. You aren't special. You aren't impartial. You aren't logical. You are just another person on the internet, trying to get his views across, usiong whatever means you can.

[Ender]

Ender, please. You call for civility, and in the same breath claim it is Trump supporters causing the uncivility.

You are not a fair and impartial judge, nor are you "the mature one" here. You are just playing games to try and advance your own personal agenda and belief system.

Your schtick is old and tired. It is 2017. The internet has been around for 20 years now. Most people see through your schtick.

If you were calling for civility, without blaming Trump for making the environment toxic, I might entertain your sincerity. But I've seen your schlock here long enough to know your sincerity is somewhat uncredible. I'll refer again to when you were trying to claim that you had the inside info on trumps sexual assault accuser (where are those brave justice seekers, anyway?), and telling us the reason we didn't believe them is because sexual assault did not affect us personally in our pesonal lives, but it had yours, so you were the authority on the matter, and you were sure they were telling the truth.

It was just more troll dung. You aren't special. You aren't impartial. You aren't logical. You are just another person on the internet, trying to get his views across, usiong whatever means you can.

Whatever.

You call me names & accuse me of shit & then do it again when I am just trying to make things light.

My only agenda is freedom.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

And I never said I had any "inside" info on Trump's sexual foolery- just the experience of an abused loved one.

[undergroundrr]

And so far I'd say it's a solid B.

LOL. Biggest pushover of a school teacher ever. Here's your student's latest assignment to grade -


Reports: US Airstrikes Killed 230 Civilians in Mosul Overnight
Over 130 Civilians Killed in Attack on a Single Building in Western Mosul
by Jason Ditz, March 23, 2017
Print This | Share This
As the US airstrikes in the Iraqi city of Mosul are increasingly concentrated around densely populated neighborhoods in the city’s west, the death toll from those airstrikes in spiraling rapidly out of control, with the most recent figures out of the area suggesting around 230 civilians were killed overnight in US and coalition strikes in just a single neighborhood.

That’s an enormous toll, of course, but is reported from several sources telling largely the same story, including that a single US airstrike against a large building full of civilians in Mosul killed over 130 people, while the other 100 or so were killed in the surrounding area.

Central Command said that they were “aware of the loss of life” and were carrying out “further investigation,” while insisting that all of their strikes against Mosul overnight “comply with the Law of Armed Conflict.” Centcom’s official report for the overnight strikes claimed they’d hit “11 fighting positions” and didn’t mention killing hundreds of civilians.

Britain’s Daily Telegraph reported that the civilian death toll was mostly women and children, saying that the bulk of the bodies were pulled from just three adjoining residences in the Jadida neighborhood. They speculated the civilians were “human shields” for ISIS snipers in the area.

That would be an awful lot of human shields, of course, and there wouldn’t be much point of stashing them inside buildings where the US forces clearly either didn’t know where they were or didn’t feel it amounted to a deterrent to bombing those buildings anyhow.

If the toll is ultimately confirmed by Centcom, which is a huge “if” given how often well documented incidents never end up on their official reports, it would roughly double the number of civilians the US has admitted to killing in Iraq and Syria over the ISIS war. NGOs have suggested the US strikes have killed well over 2,000 civilians already, and that’s not including last night’s massive toll.

How do you grade that?

Here's mine: F

No, F-

No, kick him out of the school.

trump sucks. He is an F student in everything about government. He's also a lying murderer, like Bush, like Kissinger, like Obama.

There's no changing the mind of trumpies, but if you're "on the fence" WAKE UP!!!!!

[TER]

LOL. Biggest pushover of a school teacher ever. Here's your student's latest assignment to grade -



How do you grade that?

Here's mine: F

No, F-

No, kick him out of the school.

trump sucks. He is an F student in everything about government. He's also a lying murderer, like Bush, like Kissinger, like Obama.

There's no changing the mind of trumpies, but if you're "on the fence" WAKE UP!!!!!

Would you rather have Hillary?

[dannno]

Would you rather have Hillary?

Trump gets an F on one assignment and gets kicked out of Undergeroundrr's pathetic school of elite hacks like Hillary, Obama, McCain, Bush and Romney, when he is going to totally school them in 5 other areas.

[undergroundrr]

Would you rather have Hillary?

I.
don't.
have.
a.
preference.

It's quite possible though that under Hillary we wouldn't have such a massive immediate increase in droning, an initiative to increase military spending to record levels and boots on the ground in Syria quite so lickity-split.

But.. but... but... If Hillary was POTUS, SJW's would be HAPPY! :( :( :(

The Hillary Is Worse argument is old, tired, and no longer convincing given trump's actual actions. trump is a demonstrated remorseless warmonger. RPF is obsessed with White House soap operas and turning a blind eye as he murders, murders, murders hundreds, soon to be thousands of God's innocent children.

[TER]

I.
don't.
have.
a.
preference.

It's quite possible though that under Hillary we wouldn't have such a massive immediate increase in droning, an initiative to increase military spending to record levels and boots on the ground in Syria quite so lickity-split.

But.. but... but... If Hillary was POTUS, SJW's would be HAPPY! :( :( :(

The Hillary Is Worse argument is old, tired, and no longer convincing given trump's actual actions. trump is a demonstrated remorseless warmonger. RPF is obsessed with White House soap operas and turning a blind eye as he murders, murders, murders hundreds, soon to be thousands of God's innocent children.

Oh please, no one here supports the droning or killing of innocent life, so spare me the drama.

People here are critical of Trump for his errors.

You don't like the "Hillary is worse argument"? Well that's too bad. The reality (as far as I can see it), is that things would be MUCH worse if she was in control (unless, of course, if you a transgender illegal immigrant). There would be more innocent killings, more corruption, more taxes, more eroding of our liberties and our security, and more progression into an immoral degenerate society.

You don't like the "Hillary is worse" argument because you know it to be right. And if you don't think it is right, and you think Hillary would be preferable than Trump, than I don't know what to say.

[CPUd]

My preference is President Paul.

[Anti Federalist]

How do you grade that?

Here's mine: F

No, F-

No, kick him out of the school.

trump sucks. He is an F student in everything about government. He's also a lying murderer, like Bush, like Kissinger, like Obama.

There's no changing the mind of trumpies, but if you're "on the fence" WAKE UP!!!!!

Yeah, I agree, F- on that issue.

I already said that, and I've already passed my "purity" test, I voted for Ron Paul, and posted pics of my 2016 ballot.

So, here we are.

Objectively, this course of action is wrong, more of the same that has been ongoing since the end of WW2.

Objectively, there has been progress on many other fronts that have, or will if fully realized, vastly increase individual freedom in the US.

So, for me, the best option is to continue to take each issue one by one, work with what I have and see what happens next.

[TER]

My preference is President Paul.

Of course. That is everyone's preference. And if it was Paul versus Trump, we know how this community here would be.

But the facts are that Paul is not President, Trump is, and we should be thanking God that he won and not Hillary.

Are things great now? No, there are still major problems everywhere. But we can and should appreciate and enjoy the little wins, even if they are not the great wins we hope for in our dreams.

[CPUd]

Yeah, I agree, F- on that issue.

I already said that, and I've already passed my "purity" test, I voted for Ron Paul, and posted pics of my 2016 ballot.

So, here we are.

Objectively, this course of action is wrong, more of the same that has been ongoing since the end of WW2.

Objectively, there has been progress on many other fronts that have, or will if fully realized, vastly increase individual freedom in the US.

So, for me, the best option is to continue to take each issue one by one, work with what I have and see what happens next.

A sensible approach.

[undergroundrr]

Oh please, no one here supports the droning or killing of innocent life

They ought to start proving it.


People here are critical of Trump for his errors.

Yes, they go by CPUd, Zippyjuan and TheCount. They're ferociously opposed for it.


unless, of course, if you a transgender illegal immigrant

Once again demonstrating murder and the suffering of children aren't particularly strong in your political priorities. As long as the illegals and gays get theirs, drone away. Sick.

If you're not too busy later, try to summon up the face of one of those Mosul children in your head. 230 civilians were killed. Who knows how many are in searing pain, in extremis from injuries that would scar your psyche to see. You might even consider including and their families in prayers.

If you want to be spared the drama, put me on ignore.

[jkr]

< We did'nt spy on tRUMP
< We spied on tRUMP



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC5LaHUnQMA

[TER]

Yes, they go by CPUd, Zippyjuan and TheCount. They're ferociously opposed for it.

There is a difference between being critical of Trump on his errors and trying to destroy Trump so that Hillary could get elected.



Once again demonstrating murder and the suffering of children aren't particularly strong in your political priorities. As long as the illegals and gays get theirs, drone away. Sick.

Are you a complete idiot? Do you really think I put the issues with illegals and gays to be more important over the death of innocent children? Are you a moron? The way you have been posting here the last few months surely suggests so. It is my concern over the death of innocents which is WHY I voted for Trump over the establishment witch named Hillary. I am not happy with reports like what is coming out of Mosul. But I know in my heart that there would have been many times more civilians killed in many more places had Hillary been elected and continued the saber rattling with Russia and funding of terrorists.

So why don't you grow up a little bit, enter into reality, and come back when you finally wake up.

And BTW, I do pray for the innocent people being killed everyday, as well as for idiots like you to smarten up.

[LifeLibertyPursuit]

My preference is President Paul.

Same for me. After Crooked Hillary supporters became unhinged I voted for gasoline and matches madman Drumpf. Let it all burn. It is time for a reset and the quickest way will be through my Overlord Orange. I am glad that witch lost or we never have what is going to be all out in the open.

[undergroundrr]

There is a difference between being critical of Trump on his errors and trying to destroy Trump so that Hillary could get elected.


um... the election was... well... back in November.


I do pray for the innocent people being killed everyday

Thank you.

[TheCount]

There is a difference between being critical of Trump on his errors and trying to destroy Trump so that Hillary could get elected.I don't suppose that the thought might have squeaked into your head that since we are still critical of Trump for his errors now that it's, y'know, 2017, then maybe it wasn't about Hillary?

[TER]

um... the election was... well... back in November.

Yes, so what now is the point to politically assasinate him? Who else at this point of time would come to fill in the void? You think Calvin Coolidge will crawl out of the grave? No, the answer would be Biden, or Hillary, or some other liberal establishment person who would make this country far worse for the majority of the people.

[TER]

I don't suppose that the thought might have squeaked into your head that since we are still critical of Trump for his errors now that it's, y'know, 2017, then maybe it wasn't about Hillary?

No, it's now probably for whatever liberal policy Hillary had which you place to be more important than averting WWIII. What is it, exactly? Gay rights? Black Lives Matter? Occupy Wall Street?

[undergroundrr]

Yes, so what now is the point to politically assasinate him? Who else at this point of time would come to fill in the void? You think Calvin Coolidge will crawl out of the grave? No, the answer would be Biden, or Hillary, or some other liberal establishment person who would make this country far worse for the majority of the people.

Spare me the drama. Criticizing an elected official for his actions isn't political assassination. It isn't even shilling for Hillary.

[TheCount]

Yes, so what now is the point to politically assasinate him?You figured it out. There is no point in politically assassinating him! Congratulations!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ppveMgu71r4lux2.gif



(So maybe it's just that we disagree with his policies?)

[TER]

You figured it out. There is no point in politically assassinating him! Congratulations!
(So maybe it's just that we disagree with his policies?)

OK. Which policies are they which are greater than averting WW III?

[TheCount]

OK. Which policies are they which are greater than averting WW III?Which of their policies is averting WW III?

[TER]

Which of their policies is averting WW III?

Rapproachment with nuclear armed Russia, for starters.

Also, stopping the sending of arms and money to AlQeida organzonations as well as cutting down the rhetoric in Ukraine and Syria.

So which policies of Hillary's are so important to you that these issues WW III averting policies take a backseat?

[undergroundrr]

OK. Which policies are they which are greater than averting WW III?

Marching troops into Syria, sending arms to Saudi Arabia, sabre-rattling with North Korea and threatening trade wars with China are all great steps toward averting WW III.

[undergroundrr]

So which policies of Hillary's

fail

[TheCount]

Rapproachment with nuclear armed Russia, for starters.

What rapproachment?



Also, the sending of arms and money to AlQeida organzonations as well as cutting down the rhetoric in Ukraine.

We're still supplying arms in Syria.

Cut down the rhetoric? The very first thing the State Department released after Tillerson joined is a report on how terrible Russia is being in Ukraine: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper



So which policies of Hillary's are so important to you that these issues take a backseat?Your condition is worse than I thought. In the span of 25 minutes you went from knowing that the election was over to forgetting again. Living with such a terrible handicap must be awful.

[TER]

Marching troops into Syria, sending arms to Saudi Arabia, sabre-rattling with North Korea and threatening trade wars with China are all great steps toward averting WW III.

Yes, all bad. Do you really think these things would not have happened under Hillary? Do you really think we would be in less military engagements if Hillary was elected?

[TER]

What rapproachment?


Well, the intention is there, but thanks to the deep state (or whatever you want to call it) which some here don't believe exist, it is not going as good as it should be.


We're still supplying arms in Syria.

Not to the terrorists like McCain and Hillary wanted and facilitated in supplying.


Cut down the rhetoric? The very first thing the State Department released after Tillerson joined is a report on how terrible Russia is being in Ukraine: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper

Still NO WHERE NEAR the rhetoric that would have been coming out on a daily basis had Hillary been elected, whose buddies caused the coup of the elected President there and fomented the flames of war there.


Your condition is worse than I thought. In the span of 25 minutes you went from knowing that the election was over to forgetting again. Living with such a terrible handicap must be awful.

im not forgetting the election is over. Im remembering that some here actively tried to push Trump down then and still do now. My question for you remains the same: which policies do you hold so dear to be more important than averting WW III, because it looks like if you had your way, Hillary would have been elected over Trump.

[undergroundrr]

Yes, all bad. Do you really think these things would not have happened under Hillary? Do you really think we would be in less military engagements if Hillary was elected?

Perhaps you didn't notice, Hillary lost the election. It was in November 2016.

trump has drastically ramped up interventionism and is on a killing rampage. Perhaps another could have matched him, but they would have had to work at it. And the astonishing steps of abdicating the POTUS's command to generals and CIA droners is something I'm not sure I would have expected from anybody. At this point, we're left hoping the CIA and MIC prevent WW III.

[undergroundrr]

if you had your way, Hillary would have been elected

fail

[undergroundrr]

Not to the terrorists like McCain and Hillary wanted and facilitated in supplying.

They would have done it precisely like trump and Tillerson are doing it, through Saudi Arabia.

[TER]

fail

So come right out and say it then. Would you have preferred Hillary or Trump to win?

[undergroundrr]

So come right out and say it then. Would you have preferred Hillary or Trump to win?

I know it's confusing when these threads get so long. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508836-Judge-Nap-Did-Obama-Spy-on-Trump&p=6439006&viewfull=1#post6439006

[TER]

I know it's confusing when these threads get so long. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508836-Judge-Nap-Did-Obama-Spy-on-Trump&p=6439006&viewfull=1#post6439006

So you believe both to be equally bad then I presume?

[TheCount]

So come right out and say it then. Would you have preferred Hillary or Trump to win?
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-60875-conan-wtf-face-gif-imgur-tumbl-vHyr.gif

[undergroundrr]

So you believe both to be equally bad then I presume?

No idea. Both would kill little babies.

Nobody held a gun to my head and told me to choose between baby killers. I voted for the one thing that I thought might make a difference, the recommendation made by Ron Paul - third party.

If Hillary won and this place was full of people posting that Hillary isn't as bad as trump would have been, I wouldn't consider that an improvement or a diminishment. The only difference between the two is that Hillary never gave money to trump.

Keep giving him pass after pass. March to the front to defend him from the terrible unfair SJW nevertrumpers and their gay immigrant friends.

Or you could fight him because what he's doing is unutterably evil.



1. Asma Fahad Ali al Ameri 3 months
2. Aisha Mohammed Abdallah al Ameri 4 years
3. Halima Hussein al Aifa al Ameri 5 years
4. Hussein Mohammed Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri 5 years
5. Mursil Abedraboh Masad al Ameri 6 years
6. Khadija Abdallah Mabkhout al Ameri 7 years
7. Nawar Anwar al Awlaqi 8 years
8. Ahmed Abdelilah Ahmed al Dahab 11 years
9. Nasser Abdallah Ahmed al Dahab 12 years (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-02-09/nine-young-children-killed-the-full-details-of-botched-us-raid-in-yemen)

[TER]

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-60875-conan-wtf-face-gif-imgur-tumbl-vHyr.gif

Are you confused with the question? Is it difficult for you to answer?

[TER]

No idea.

You don't have an idea if Hillary would be worse than Trump? Well, I believe she would have been much worse. I think Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie believes the same.

That doesn't excuse Trump from the bad things he does, but it does give me some bit of hope that maybe things will get better than they have been heading and would have been heading with Hillary as President.

I do not have blind allegiance to Trump. But I do wish him the best, that's for sure.

[undergroundrr]

Are you confused with the question? Is it difficult for you to answer?

I think he's pointing out that the election already took place. It was last November.

You've failed to convincingly explain why it would be bad for somebody to prefer one baby killer over another. Care to take another shot at it?

[undergroundrr]

I think Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie believes the same.

Those are good guys. I would put "believes" in past tense because we're talking about the election. That's already taken place. It was last November. They were taking a guess at the time. But we don't have to guess anymore.

Ron Paul didn't believe there was a significant difference between trump and Hillary. I respect that you didn't put him in the list.

[undergroundrr]

Sorry, this part's been eating at me -


But I do wish him the best, that's for sure.

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

Why wish an infant murderer "the best?"

[TER]

Those are good guys. I would put "believes" in past tense because we're talking about the election. That's already taken place. It was last November. They were taking a guess at the time. But we don't have to guess anymore.

Ron Paul didn't believe there was a significant difference between trump and Hillary. I respect that you didn't put him in the list.

Do you believe that those I listed above think Trump is doing a worse job than what Hillary would have done? I understand these are hypotheticals, but honestly, what do you think they would say if you asked them : 'on March 23rd, 2017, do you think it is better for the American citizens that Trump is President right now rather than if Hillary is President is right now?'

Is there any doubt at all that they would not say Trump in the Presidency is much better?

[TER]

Sorry, this part's been eating at me -



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

Why wish an infant murderer "the best?"

Because I wish that he would learn to stop these interventions and strikes. He has shown that he does change, and can be convinced. So I wish him the best, that he continues to do the good things he is doing and stop the bad things he is doing.

[CPUd]

It would be better for Americans if Ron or Rand Paul were president today rather than Trump or Clinton.

[undergroundrr]

Do you believe that those I listed above think Trump is doing a worse job than what Hillary would have done? I understand these are hypotheticals, but honestly, what do you think they would say if you asked them : 'on March 23rd, 2017, do you think it is better for the American citizens that Trump is President right now rather than if Hillary is President is right now?'

Amash called trump "genuinely terrifying."
Rand called trump "a delusonal narcissist" and "Gollum."
Massie was nicer. "I'm more excited to vote for Trump than I was to vote for Romney-Ryan. I think you're more likely to get change. I don't know if it's gonna be a good change, but you gotta break eggs to make an omelette." But he's hardly been cooperative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508898-GOP-rep-changes-healthcare-vote-from-no-to-hell-no&highlight=massie).

News update: If somebody was against trump, that doesn't mean they were for Hillary. That includes Ron, Rand and Justin btw.

By the way, the election is over. It was back in November of 2016. But you'll just have to ask them if they preferred Hillary. You've asked half of this forum. Have you considered seeing if Frank Luntz has any job openings?

They're fighting against every bad thing he's doing and picking their battles as wisely as they can. That's way more than the RPF trumpies and fence-sitters are doing. Defend Defend Defend God Emperor. Stop the Hillary-loving nevertrumpers at all costs.

I'm delighted I don't have to watch what I say about trump like somebody in congress would. In fact, you don't either. You can actually call him out for, say, killing babies. But you might find that pointless and counterproductive. Not worth a post on a vBulletin. Might sully your reputation, make people think you're on the wrong side. Might discourage trump from doing all the good things he's going to do for America to make up for the screams of children in pain, who have have lost their parents and siblings, who have had their limbs blown off. This guy called Commander-in-Chief that wants the CIA and MIC to take care of all that so he can pretend he's not culpable. There I go with the drama again.

[phill4paul]

Amash called trump "genuinely terrifying."
Rand called trump "a delusonal narcissist" and "Gollum."
Massie was nicer. "I'm more excited to vote for Trump than I was to vote for Romney-Ryan. I think you're more likely to get change. I don't know if it's gonna be a good change, but you gotta break eggs to make an omelette." But he's hardly been cooperative (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?508898-GOP-rep-changes-healthcare-vote-from-no-to-hell-no&highlight=massie).

News update: If somebody was against trump, that doesn't mean they were for Hillary. That includes Ron, Rand and Justin btw.

By the way, the election is over. It was back in November of 2016. But you'll just have to ask them if they preferred Hillary. You've asked half of this forum. Have you considered seeing if Frank Luntz has any job openings?

They're fighting against every bad thing he's doing and picking their battles as wisely as they can. That's way more than the RPF trumpies and fence-sitters are doing. Defend Defend Defend God Emperor. Stop the Hillary-loving nevertrumpers at all costs.

I'm delighted I don't have to watch what I say about trump like somebody in congress would. In fact, you don't either. You can actually call him out for, say, killing babies. But you might find that pointless and counterproductive. Not worth a post on a vBulletin. Might sully your reputation, make people think you're on the wrong side. Might discourage trump from doing all the good things he's going to do for America to make up for the screams of children in pain, who have have lost their parents and siblings, who have had their limbs blown off. This guy called Commander-in-Chief that wants the CIA and MIC to take care of all that so he can pretend he's not culpable. There I go with the drama again.

The howling and screeching if Hillary had won and conducted the same actions would have been speaker splitting.

"THIS is what you get for not supporting Trump, Trump said that we shouldn't be over there, doing these things!" is what they would be howling. "THIS is what you get for actively voicing your opinions against Trump, and by default supporting Hitlery, on these message boards!, " is what they'd be screeching.

[phill4paul]

The howling and screeching if Hillary had won and conducted the same actions would have been speaker splitting.

"THIS is what you get for not supporting Trump, Trump said that we shouldn't be over there, doing these things!" is what they would be howling. "THIS is what you get for actively voicing your opinions against Trump, and by default supporting Hitlery, on these message boards!, " is what they'd be screeching.

It was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition to not support the God Emperor. Still is.

[Anti Federalist]

A sensible approach.

Honestly, I like to think so.

[Anti Federalist]

Top of Drudge right now...

Potential 'smoking gun' showing Obama administration spied on Trump team, source says

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/23/potential-smoking-gun-showing-obama-administration-spied-on-trump-team-source-says.html

Classified intelligence showing incidental collection of Trump team communications, purportedly seen by committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., and described by him in vague terms at a bombshell Wednesday afternoon news conference, came from multiple sources, Capitol Hill sources told Fox News. The intelligence corroborated information about surveillance of the Trump team that was known to Nunes, sources said, even before President Trump accused his predecessor of having wiretappedhim in a series of now-infamous tweets posted on March 4.

The intelligence is said to leave no doubt the Obama administration, in its closing days, was using the cover of legitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on President-elect Trump, according to sources.

The key to that conclusion is the unmasking of selected U.S. persons whose names appeared in the intelligence, the sources said, adding that the paper trail leaves no other plausible purpose for the unmasking other than to damage the incoming Trump administration.

The FBI hasn’t been responsive to the House Intelligence Committee’s request for documents, but the National Security Agency is expected to produce documents to the committee by Friday. The NSA document production is expected to produce more intelligence than Nunes has so far seen or described – including what one source described as a potential “smoking gun” establishing the spying.

Some time will be needed to properly assess the materials, with the likely result being that congressional investigators and attorneys won’t have a solid handle on the contents of the documents – and their implications – until next week.

Because Nunes’s intelligence came from multiple sources during a span of several weeks, and he has not shared the actual materials with his committee colleagues, he will be the only member of the panel in a position to know whether the NSA has turned over some or all of the intelligence he is citing. However, Fox News was told Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., had been briefed on the basic contents of the intelligence described by Nunes.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo is also sympathetic to the effort to determine, with documentary evidence, the extent of any alleged Obama administration spying on the Trump team, sources said.

At a dramatic Wednesday news conference, Nunes claimed to have seen evidence that members of the Trump transition team, possibly including the president-elect, were subjected to “incidental surveillance” collection that Nunes characterized as legal but troubling.

“What I've read bothers me,” he told reporters, “and I think it should bother the president himself, and his team because I think some of it seems to be inappropriate.”

Schiff blasted Nunes for not coming first to the Intelligence Committee with the information.

"If accurate, this information should have been shared with members of the committee, but it has not been," Schiff said in a Wednesday statement.

[UWDude]

It's quite possible though that under Hillary we wouldn't have such a massive immediate increase in droning, an initiative to increase military spending to record levels and boots on the ground in Syria quite so lickity-split.



bullshit

[Jamesiv1]

I would say the same thing, except I would be talking about Donald trump, Steve Bannon, Lew Rockwell, Stefan Molyneux and Alex Jones.
You sir, are a stooge for the Deep State.