Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 140

Thread: Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance

  1. #1

    Yes, There Could Be Serious Legal Problems if Obama Admin Involved in Illegal Surveillance

    Good article with precise analysis from lawnewz.com.

    President Trump recently tweeted claiming that former President Obama wiretapped him during his campaign. One can only imagine how nuts the media would have gone if the roles had been reversed: President Trump wiretapping either Obama or the Clintons, though his DOJ could have authority to do just that given the expansive leaks of intelligence information by Obama and Clinton supporters the last few months. Heck, he could wiretap the media at this point, legally and legitimately, as the sources of these unlawful leaks, for which Obama himself set precedent. Do liberals understand what Pandora’s Box Obama opened up by Obama using the powers of the NSA, CIA and FBI to spy on his political opponents? Even Nixon never did that.

    If the stories are correct, Obama or his officials might even face prosecution. But, we are still early in all of this and there are a lot of rumors flying around so the key is if the reports are accurate. We just don’t know at this time. The stories currently are three-fold: first, that Obama’s team tried to get a warrant from a regular, Article III federal court on Trump, and was told no by someone along the way (maybe the FBI), as the evidence was that weak or non-existent; second, Obama’s team then tried to circumvent the federal judiciary’s independent role by trying to mislabel the issue one of “foreign agents,” and tried to obtain a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “courts”, and were again turned down, when the court saw Trump named (an extremely rare act of FISA court refusal of the government, suggesting the evidence was truly non-existent against Trump); and so, third, Obama circumvented both the regular command of the FBI and the regularly appointed federal courts, by placing the entire case as a FISA case (and apparently under Sally Yates at DOJ) as a “foreign” case, and then omitted Trump’s name from a surveillance warrant submitted to the FISA court, which the FISA court unwittingly granted, which Obama then misused to spy on Trump and many connected to Trump. Are these allegations true? We don’t know yet, but if any part of them are then Obama and/or his officials could face serious trouble.

    Can a President be charged with a crime? Only once out of office. While in office, impeachment remains the exclusive remedy in order to avoid a single judicial branch trying to overturn an election, such as a grand jury in any part of the country could. Once out of office, a President remains immune from civil liability for his duties while President, under a 1982 decision of the United States Supreme Court. However, as the Nixon pardon attests, nothing forecloses a criminal prosecution of the President after his presidency is complete for crimes against the country. Obama, the Constitutional lawyer, should know that.

    What crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

    FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

    One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

    FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” Now that sounds broad, but is in fact very limited under the law. The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

    This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime. Third, the kind of information sought concerns solely information about a pending or actual attack on the country. That is why the law limits itself to sabotage incidents involving war, not any form or kind of “sabotage,” explicitly limiting itself to those acts identified in section 105 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

    This bring us to Watergate-on-Steroids, or #ObamaGate. Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked. Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance. Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.

    At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.

    Out of 35,000+ requests for surveillance, the FISA court has only ever rejected a whopping 12. Apparently, according to published reports, you can add one more to that — even the FISA court first rejected Obama’s request to spy on Trump’s team under the guise of an investigation into foreign agents of a pending war attack, intelligence agents apparently returned to the court, where, it is my assumption, that they did not disclose or divulge all material facts to the court when seeking the surveillance the second time around, some of which they would later wrongfully disseminate and distribute to the public. By itself, misuse of FISA procedures to obtain surveillance is itself, a crime.

    This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

    Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts. Lastly, given the later behavior, it is evident any promise in the affidavit to protect the surveilled information from ever being sourced or disseminated was a false promise, intended to induce the illicit surveillance. This is criminalized both by federal perjury statutes, conspiracy statutes, and the FISA criminal laws themselves.

    That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press. This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

    Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law. Obama’s team’s admission it could be classified lower, yet taking actions to insure its broadest distribution, could even put Obama smack-middle of the biggest unlawful surveillance and political-opponent-smear campaign since Nixon. Except even Nixon didn’t use the FBI and NSA for his dirty tricks.

    Watergate would have never happened if Nixon felt like he could just ask the FBI or NSA to tape the calls. This is Hoover-esque abuses of the kind Bob Woodward pal, former FBI Assistant Director Mark Felt (otherwise known as Deep Throat), routinely engaged in at the FBI until convicted and removed from office. (You didn’t know that Deep Throat was really a corrupt part of Deep State, did you? Guess who ran the famous COINTELPRO? That’s right — Deep Throat. How would the public have reacted if they knew the media had been in bed with the deep state all the way back then? Maybe that was the reason Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley kept Deep Throat’s identity secret all those years?)

    Democrats may regret Sessions’ recusal, as his replacement is a mini-Sessions: a long-respected, a-political, highly ethical prosecutor, Dana Boente, whose reputation is well-warranted from his service at the Tax Division, and who won’t be limited by any perceived ties to Trump, given his prior appointment by Obama. Obama himself appeared scared of Boente, as he removed Boente from the successor-to-Sessions position during the lame-duck part of Obama’s presidency, but Trump restored Boente to that role earlier this month. Democrats may get the investigation they wanted, but it may be their own that end up named in the indictment.
    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-...-surveillance/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Should I add this to the list of definitely happening investigations which are certainly going someplace?

    Currently tracking investigations:

    Clinton foundation money
    Pizzagate
    3-5 million illegal votes
    Leaks to press in administration
    Obama DOJ money
    Obama wiretap

    Am I missing any of the definitely in progress investigations which will result in indictments any day now?
    Last edited by TheCount; 03-09-2017 at 09:30 AM.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Should I add this to the list of definitely happening investigations will are certainly going someplace?

    Currently tracking investigations:

    Clinton foundation money
    Pizzagate
    3-5 million illegal votes
    Leaks to press in administration
    Obama DOJ money
    Obama wiretap

    Am I missing any of the definitely in progress investigations which will result in indictments any day now?
    Keep them tied up so they aren't checking that Russian thing. Change the subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    "There is always a tweet. That has become accepted fact in the Trump presidency: For every pronouncement the President makes, there is at least one tweet from his past that directly contradicts his current view." -CNN

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Keep them tied up so they aren't checking that Russian thing. Change the subject.
    I am a little curious about the DOJ money .
    Do something Danke

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Keep them tied up so they aren't checking that Russian thing. Change the subject.
    LOL "The Russian Thing" is the Dem distraction.

    However I do not commit to any of these going anywhere:
    Clinton foundation money
    Pizzagate
    3-5 million illegal votes
    Leaks to press in administration
    Obama DOJ money
    Obama wiretap

    At least some of them should though.

  7. #6
    Of-course they were involved in illegal surveillance.

    As was the Bush administration.

    As Trump plans to do.

    Like our government uses warrants.

    We know theyve been conducting warrant-less spying, recording and monitoring all electronic communications without warrants.

    But forget all that, lets focus on the incredibly small % of requests rubber stamped by FISA...?
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

  8. #7
    How crazy is FISA rejecting gov requests?

  9. #8
    ^^^ And 13 times, no less...

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Should I add this to the list of definitely happening investigations will are certainly going someplace?

    Currently tracking investigations:

    Clinton foundation money
    Pizzagate
    3-5 million illegal votes
    Leaks to press in administration
    Obama DOJ money
    Obama wiretap

    Am I missing any of the definitely in progress investigations which will result in indictments any day now?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Of-course they were involved in illegal surveillance.

    As was the Bush administration.

    As Trump plans to do.

    Like our government uses warrants.

    We know theyve been conducting warrant-less spying, recording and monitoring all electronic communications without warrants.

    But forget all that, lets focus on the incredibly small % of requests rubber stamped by FISA...?
    Yeah, they all do it... just more brazen about it now... or maybe just harder to conceal.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    Good article with precise analysis from lawnewz.com.



    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-...-surveillance/
    The Plot Thickens




    Valerie Jarrett's operation which was directed from the White House – not the Justice Department as being claimed. The Obama officials are not denying the covert operation, but are trying to paint it as a legitimate investigation of Trump launched by Lynch at the Justice Department to give deniability to Obama. Jarrett was a Senior Adviser to Obama between 2009 up until January 20th, 2017. She is a Chicago lawyer who previously has been tied to Obama and served as a co-chair of the Obama-Biden Transition Project.

    Jarrett has joined Obama’s effort to help with an “insurgency” movement against President Donald Trump. Rumors also imply that both Chuck Schummer and Hillary knew of this investigation and were briefed, possibly by Jarrett or others in the White House.

    in October 2016 before the election, the Obama administration submitted a new request that was more narrow to the FISA court which targeted a computer server in Trump Tower they alleged would show links to Russian banks. No such evidence was found and indeed it was a witch-hunt. However, the wiretaps continued claiming it was for national security to try to distinguish this from Watergate


    Then NSA Director Michael Rogers participated in the sessions at Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington. It turns out that Obama officially blamed Puttin on October 8th, 2016. Then on Thursday November 17th, 2016, Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump after the election without informing others. Then the next day, the Washington Post reported on a recommendation in “October” that Mike Rogers be removed from his NSA position. This was a recommendation from the Pentagon and the NSA to President Obama that Rogers must be removed. This was delivered to Obama by Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. Reuters reported on November 19th, that Carter and Clapper demanded to fire Rogers. Rogers didn’t want to participate in the Obama spying scheme led by Clapper. All the information I was getting from behind the curtain warned that there was indeed a soft-coup against Trump that was organized by Obama and that Clapper was deeply involved. I warned this was being called the “Gang of Four” behind the curtain – absolutely unprecedented. Everyone knows I am very cautious not to get involved in conspiracy theories."


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Should I add this to the list of definitely happening investigations will are certainly going someplace?

    Currently tracking investigations:

    Clinton foundation money
    Pizzagate?
    What's a matter? Child predators just something to laugh at and dismiss?





    http://washingtonlife.com/2015/06/05...ivate-viewing/
    Last edited by Athan; 03-08-2017 at 10:48 AM.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    Child predators just something to laugh at and dismiss?
    What child predators?

  15. #13

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    What child predators?
    I guess you do approve of it. Obviously the ones found through the wikileaks release of podesta email's dump.
    I mean why else would you toss an article that is discussing the possible implications of a possible infringement of Donald Trump's 4th amendment rights? A scandal we don't yet know about with one where we do have a lot larger body of evidence.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  17. #15
    What is up with the Russian obsession over Valerie Jarrett these days?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    "There is always a tweet. That has become accepted fact in the Trump presidency: For every pronouncement the President makes, there is at least one tweet from his past that directly contradicts his current view." -CNN

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    I guess you do approve of it. Obviously the ones found through the wikileaks release of podesta email's dump.
    Who has been found?

    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    I mean why else would you toss an article that is discussing the possible implications of a possible infringement of Donald Trump's 4th amendment rights?
    I don't spend my time discussing the possible purchases that I will possibly make with my possible lottery winnings either. Illustrating all of the claims that Trump has made gives an idea of just how possible it is that the allegations he makes will actually find or result in anything whatsoever. He's 0 for 0 so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    A scandal we don't yet know about with one where we do have a lot larger body of evidence.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What is up with the Russian obsession over Valerie Jarrett these days?
    This is a nice one Zip. Anybody who discusses VJ is a Russian spy.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Who has been found?

    I don't spend my time discussing the possible purchases that I will possibly make with my possible lottery winnings either. Illustrating all of the claims that Trump has made gives an idea of just how possible it is that the allegations he makes will actually find or result in anything whatsoever. He's 0 for 0 so far.
    And there's the rub, why toss Pizzagate with new Trump administration news that has yet to be fully learned? We don't know much about the new claim from Trump yet. *IF* true it is a violation of his 4th amendment rights. However thus far, with the Justice Department already seeking permission to wiretap, it isn't something that can be tossed aside.

    Regardless of Trump's credibility you tried to discredit Wikileaks Pizzagate information that is known because of information provided by many people not relating to the Trump campaign who have been searching online and finding a lot of information on social media and others which has ties to people like James Alefantis, John Podesta, and Tony Podesta as a direct result of them talking in code in actual digital evidence of email conversations. Those three for instance are politically done or irrelevant when it comes to liberal democrats such as yourself vs. Trump. They can be tossed under the bus and it wouldn't damage or help Trump politically.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    And there's the rub, why toss Pizzagate with new Trump administration news that has yet to be fully learned?
    Because past performance is an indicator of future results. If a team has lost the last eight games, that affects how likely I think it is that they will win their next game.

    Also, because there is zero evidence offered by the administration, and they have already punted the claim into the woods never to be heard from again. Within the Executive branch they have all of the powers and capabilities that they need to pursue all of these matters and yet they are not and will not. Why not, if there is any substance to the allegations?

    This is basic critical thinking.


    Quote Originally Posted by Athan View Post
    Regardless of Trump's credibility you tried to discredit Wikileaks Pizzagate information that is known because of information provided by many people not relating to the Trump campaign who have been searching online and finding a lot of information on social media and others which has ties to people like James Alefantis, John Podesta, and Tony Podesta as a direct result of them talking in code in actual digital evidence of email conversations. Those three for instance are politically done or irrelevant when it comes to liberal democrats such as yourself vs. Trump. They can be tossed under the bus and it wouldn't damage or help Trump politically.
    The sources of these claims are the same. The wiretap allegation did not originate with Trump. Also, once again for the word evidence:

  23. #20
    Are we talking evidence like evidence of the Russians hacking the election? Or evidence like evidence of the Russians secretly working with Trump? Kinda funny that we just found out the CIA has the ability to make it look like a foreign country did the hacking on their way back out the door, no?

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by RPtotheWH View Post
    Are we talking evidence like evidence of the Russians hacking the election? Or evidence like evidence of the Russians secretly working with Trump?
    The truth or lack thereof about claims about Russia and Trump have nothing do with the truth of Trump's allegations. "He made $#@! up about me so I get to make $#@! up about him" only counts as a good argument until middle school.

  25. #22

    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...77702517927936
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Because past performance is an indicator of future results. If a team has lost the last eight games, that affects how likely I think it is that they will win their next game.

    Also, because there is zero evidence offered by the administration, and they have already punted the claim into the woods never to be heard from again. Within the Executive branch they have all of the powers and capabilities that they need to pursue all of these matters and yet they are not and will not. Why not, if there is any substance to the allegations?

    This is basic critical thinking.

    The sources of these claims are the same. The wiretap allegation did not originate with Trump. Also, once again for the word evidence:
    Are you daft? What does Trump's allegations of wiretapping have to do with Wikileaks and Pizzagate? I specifically told you, Pizzagate is something completely different. It has a body of evidence not simply a single piece of evidence. The evidence ranges from what the NYPD has discovered in Anthony Weiner's computer under the "Life Insurance" named folder and other saved back up of Clinton missing emails, social media, online behavior and suggestive statements. So much so, I'd have to make ANOTHER thread that was created to discuss and post evidence. So your evidence can be found here in this thread:

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...zagate-scandal

    You want evidence? There you go, start there. I have provided it.

    The onus is now on YOU to provide excuses and explanations for the odd and possibly the criminal behavior.

    In fact, had it been Trump that was doing anything even remotely similar, you'd flip your $h!t. Hell CPU'd had posted Trump daughter sitting on one of his leg in a less offensive manner yet seemed to try to imply sexual innuendo. It is telling how you anti-Trump people bring up that, but here you are trying to dismiss Pizzagate like it's a conspiracy like flat earth or a fake moon landing cover up.

    Nothing Trump has done has amounted to anything nearly as grievous, telling, and disturbing as those involved in Pizzagate. Yet you all act like he is the great satan, and dismiss allegations backed up by a LOT of disturbing facts of evil behavior.



    Here's a video of an honest covering of Pizzagate from non-other than Ben Swann who is WELL known in Ron Paul Forums even before this story.


    In REGARDS to Trump's allegation, any liberty minded person would be QUICKLY concerned if there were violations of a person's 4th amendment rights. Even if he were a liar, people have a right to privacy and against unlawful infringements upon their papers, effects. With Vault 7 being released, we know how far the government's capability and intent to spy on people is coming to light. And yes, much of it verifies what many of us suspected already. Yet, Trump's 4th amendment right is suddenly not a cause for concern? Really what are you even doing here on Ron Paul Forums and among liberty lovers?

    Since you don't seem to have any libertarian thinking at all, clearly when it comes to this issue. I'll post the amendment since you may not know what we value here.

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED. Not "unless you're Trump".
    Last edited by Athan; 03-08-2017 at 04:32 PM.
    For the Republic! For the Cause!
    The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaxIPPMR3fI#t=186

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is a nice one Zip. Anybody who discusses VJ is a Russian spy.
    Dang Russkies!!!
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    The truth or lack thereof about claims about Russia and Trump have nothing do with the truth of Trump's allegations. "He made $#@! up about me so I get to make $#@! up about him" only counts as a good argument until middle school.
    What is your proof that Trump has no proof?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by RPtotheWH View Post
    What is your proof that Trump has no proof?
    Can you find somebody other than Trump who claims to have actually seen it? His own FBI director says there is no evidence.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7613091.html

    FBI chief James Comey 'urges Justice Department to publicly refute Donald Trump's wiretap claim'

    FBI director James Comey has asked the Justice Department to reject publicly Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama wiretapped his communications, according to US media reports.

    Senior officials close to Mr Comey said he has privately called on the department to dismiss the false claims, the New York Times reported, because they imply the FBI has acted illegally.

    The President tweeted on Saturday that Mr Obama had ordered FBI agents to monitor communications coming in and out of Trump Tower in October, comparing it to "McCarthyism" and "Nixon/Watergate".

    He gave no evidence to support his claim but a report by alt-right website Breitbart made the same allegation one day earlier – again citing no evidence or official sources.

    On Sunday, the White House asked Congress to include the allegations in its investigation into whether Russia interfered in the election.

    The Justice Department has yet to issue a formal statement on the matter.

    Mr Comey privately said he believed there was no evidence to support Mr Trump's claim, US media reported. He will come under pressure from Democrats to come out with a public statement on the matter, as it is the FBI that would have records to show whether Mr Trump’s claims are true.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-08-2017 at 05:01 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    "There is always a tweet. That has become accepted fact in the Trump presidency: For every pronouncement the President makes, there is at least one tweet from his past that directly contradicts his current view." -CNN

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Can you find somebody other than Trump who claims to have actually seen it?
    The investigation hasn't even begun and everyone already has proof both ways, how is that staying neutral or having critical thinking? There has been no proof presented from either side, its all he said/she said. So again I ask what proof do you have there was no spying on Trump's team?

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by RPtotheWH View Post
    The investigation hasn't even begun and everyone already has proof both ways, how is that staying neutral or having critical thinking? There has been no proof presented from either side, its all he said/she said. So again I ask what proof do you have there was no spying on Trump's team?
    Obviously one cannot absolutely prove there is no evidence at all- that is impossible- you can't prove a negative- so the burden must be on somebody providing evidence that it did occur. None has been forthcoming.

    (see my update where Trump's FBI director- who would be in a position to know and working for the President be likely to support his position on things- says he has not seen any evidence to support the claims)
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 03-08-2017 at 05:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The quality seems to have dropped significantly since I came here, I guess you get what you pay for.
    "There is always a tweet. That has become accepted fact in the Trump presidency: For every pronouncement the President makes, there is at least one tweet from his past that directly contradicts his current view." -CNN

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    (see my update where Trump's FBI director says he has not seen any evidence to support the claims)
    Come on man, did you even read it? That is the same BS I see Breitbart and all the others ripped on about "sources".

    Senior officials close to Mr Comey said
    That sounds legit.

  34. #30
    I really don't know one way or the other, I am looking for SOMEONE to provide proof of something either way.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2016, 10:49 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-10-2014, 03:48 PM
  3. Legal Problems
    By TER in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-30-2014, 08:35 AM
  4. Obama Admin Seeks Changes to Telecom Surveillance Laws
    By Reason in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2010, 07:33 PM
  5. Admin Official Involved in Gitmo Closure Resigns
    By Reason in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2009, 12:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •