Trump Wire Taps?

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
Trump Wire Taps?

So Trump recently tweeted from his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida (his fourth weekend away from Washington since he was inaugurated Jan. 20) that Obama was a "bad (or sick) guy" for tapping his offices in Trump Tower. He has not yet provided any evidence for this rather serious accusation. So here are the possibilities that I think we should discuss:

A. That Trump read news from Breitbart.com and InfoWars and then immediately tweeted out accusations without seeking further information or clarification. Both of these ran with a story on Friday alleging that Obama eavesdropped on Trump. So even though he has a responsibility to lead a diverse nation 320 million Americans, he chooses to tweet out accusations of lawbreaking that will serve to further erode our political climate and dialogue.

B. That Trump was indeed wiretapped. That means that another possibility is that the president was under surveillance through an order from a FISA court. This would mean that a federal judge felt there was probable cause to believe that Trump had committed a serious crime or was an agent of a foreign power.

C. That Obama convinced members of a federal agency to illegally circumvent the FISA procedure and tap Trump directly. Or maybe Obama snuck into Trump Tower and installed the taps himself. In either case, Trump should provide evidence and proceed with charges against Obama.

What do you think?

JackStrawFromWichita
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 36 min ago
Joined: 02/05/2014 - 6:17pm
I believe the clinical term

I believe the clinical term is "paranoid episode"...

BlueJay
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
This is certainly interesting

This is certainly interesting....

Intelligence Officer Claims Obama Was Involved In The Wiretapping Of Trump Tower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Oga4AVrj8&app=desktop

This officer sheds light on what may well have occurred.

BlueJay
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 29 min ago
Joined: 04/18/2005 - 12:01am
And now this:

And now this:

Obama Admin Source Confirms Wiretapping Happened Against Donald Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wgv-M4g_nc&app=desktop

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
So that guy is basically

So that guy is basically saying that Obama would have been fully informed of any wiretapping that took place.

So, because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 means that targeted electronic surveillance on U.S. soil is barred unless the government can show to a FISA court that the target was a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, that the administration must have made a case that Trump was indeed an agent of a foreign power.

Is that what you are saying? That Trump is basically saying that the FISA court thought he might be an agent of a foreign power?

johnw
Offline
Last seen: 36 min 21 sec ago
Joined: 03/11/2009 - 10:06am
With obama planning an

With obama planning an insurgency to protect his "legacy' why is it hard to believe pre -election that he wouldn't try to undermine Trump?

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
Claudius, change your AMG

Claudius, change your AMG handle to Erroneous if you want any of us to take you seriously.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 day ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Obviously no one here knows

Obviously no one here knows anything that can contribute to understanding of this topic.
The best we can do is consider and weigh the thoughts/speculation/reporting of others who stand to know more than we do.
For example here's former AUSA Andy McCarthy writing at NRO:

[Start of excerpt]
To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates. As I have stressed, it is unclear whether “named” in this context indicates that Trump himself was cited as a person the Justice Department was alleging was a Russian agent whom it wanted to surveil. It could instead mean that Trump’s name was merely mentioned in an application that sought to conduct surveillance on other alleged Russian agents. President Trump’s tweets on Saturday claimed that “President Obama . . . tapp[ed] my phones[,]” which makes it more likely that Trump was targeted for surveillance, rather than merely mentioned in the application.

In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request, which is notable: The FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national-security surveillance (although, as I’ve noted over the years, the claim by many that it is a rubber-stamp is overblown).

Not taking no for an answer, the Obama Justice Department evidently returned to the FISA court in October 2016, the critical final weeks of the presidential campaign. This time, the Justice Department submitted a narrowly tailored application that did not mention Trump. The court apparently granted it, authorizing surveillance of some Trump associates. It is unknown whether that surveillance is still underway, but the New York Times has identified – again, based on illegal leaks of classified information – at least three of its targets: Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman who was ousted in August), and two others whose connection to the Trump campaign was loose at best, Manafort’s former political-consulting business partner Roger Stone, and investor Carter Page. The Times report (from mid-January) includes a lot of heavy breathing about potential ties between the Trump campaign and Russia; but it ultimately concedes that the government’s FISA investigation may have nothing to do with Trump, the campaign, or alleged Russian efforts to interfere in the U.S. election by hacking e-mail accounts.

...as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House.

[End of excerpt]

A cynic would ask, what did the White House know and when did they know it?
As further context, please recall that the Obama DOJ spied on reporters, eg, Sharyl Atkisson and James Rosen.

mainemom
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 day ago
Joined: 03/09/2004 - 1:01am
Senate Intelligence Committee

Senate Intelligence Committee member Tom Cotton told Chris Wallace he has no knowledge about any Trumpworld related FISA requests or warrants.
He also cautioned people not to take at face value anything in published reports coming from anonymous sources, because there is lots of inaccurate stuff being printed.
He made the case that there's no reason to think Trump is swaying policy in a pro-Russia direction, saying,
“If you want to know what a pro-Russia policy would look like, Chris, here are some elements of it. You’d slash defense spending. You’d slow down our nuclear modernization. You’d roll back missile defense systems. You would enter a one-sided nuclear control arms agreement. And you’d try to do everything you could to stop oil and gas production. That was Barack Obama’s policy for eight years. That’s not Donald Trump’s policy.”

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ Mark T. Cenci

@ Mark T. Cenci

Can you point out what you find erroneous about my post?

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@mainemom

@mainemom

I don't think it is true that nobody knows anything that can contribute to this topic.

Here's what we know: The president of the United States tweets very serious accusations against a former president from his vacation home in Florida. In those tweets, he states that Obama is "sick" and that these actions are akin to Watergate. But as the excerpt that you copied and pasted into your response states, according to anonymous sources, the FISA court agreed to surveil Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, and Carter Page. The Justice Department must have agreed that there is some cause to give the orders to surveil.

Seems to me like that is a LOT of information to discuss.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
And, Claudius, as we know

And, Claudius, as we know from listening to Democrats, it's not the veracity of the accusation. It's the severity.

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ Tom C

@ Tom C

You comment was a little cryptic and doesn't seem to address the underlying topic of implications of Trump tweeting out that he was wiretapped. But what I can tell, it seems like we both agree that this is an unverified accusation. I await his verification.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
I don't waste the time and

I don't waste the time and energy of my life on futile efforts.

Your a priori assumptions exceed those of a philosophical starting point or a bias, such as how I operate, for instance as a small govt advocate. There's nothing anyone can write that will convince to void your foregone conclusions. That's obvious because you've already hid behind fisa .

We only wonder what key your shrieking would be in if Sessions got a ruling to wiretap a political opponent.

Better yet. How about you tell us why we should bother with you .

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ Mark T. Cenci

@ Mark T. Cenci

Why should you bother with me? Because I'm asking a reasonable question about Trump's recent tweets. I try very hard to make my tone reasonable as we discuss this. For example, I don't think I'm "shrieking" about anything. What make you think I'm shrieking?

I also don't know what you mean by "hiding" behind FISA. I'm simply stating (contrary to what the president implied in his tweets) that a president can't simply order wiretapping within the US. So if he was tapped, the court must have agreed that there was some evidence or reason to do so. How is that hiding?

Similarly, if Sessions got a ruling from FISA to wiretap a political opponent, then also make a reasonable assumption that the court agreed that there was reasonable cause to do so. Do you disagree with that?

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ johnw

@ johnw

Are you taking about an actual insurgency? What do you mean? What make you think this?

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
Tom Foley, Democrat senator

Tom Foley, Democrat senator on investigating Reagan's campaign and the Iran hostage release: "The seriousness of the charge mandates that we investigate this," "Even though there is no evidence," he said, "the seriousness of the charge is what matters."

Secondly, at this time there are plenty of sources from both camps that say the Trump wiretapping happened.

A poster at Free Republic pointed out:

"The spin has evolved from “Trump is talking crazy again” to “Trump has no proof” to “a wiretap was done without Obama’s knowledge” to “Obama had no choice but to investigate the treasonous Trump.”

Absolute liars and losers.

Pathetic and sad.

Irony of the century:

Washington Post: " Trump’s ‘evidence’ for Obama wiretap claims relies on sketchy, anonymously sourced reports

lolololol.

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
My bias and a priori

My bias and a priori assumption is that fisa has always been politicized. The integrity of Obamas justice dept offers me no reason to think otherwise.

I like Trump calling out possible govt excess. It's what the press should do but does not.

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
Can you explain a couple of

Can you explain a couple of things to me?

First, why did you post "lolololol" about that Washington Post article. It seems pretty clear from that article that the evidence about the wiretaps originates in an article (later referenced by Mark Levin and Breitbart) from a British journalist named Louise Mensch in a news organization called "Heat Street" and from a Guardian article. The conclusion in that article is that "The articles all suggest that the FISA requests — if they happened — were done by the intelligence agencies and the FBI."

Do you have information that contradicts that conclusion? What in that article do you disagree with?

Furthermore, I don't understand who you are calling "absolute liars" and "pathetic and sad." As far as I can see, the president found out that wiretapping took place (which might indeed have happened) but didn't look too much further into it and then tweeted out an accusation to the entire country.

That seems kinda pathetic and sad too.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
Oh, brother.

Oh, brother.

The Washington Post has been awash in "sketchy, anonymously sourced reports." Their complaint is ironic.

If wiretapping of Trump's campaign and campaign aides took place, then it is an outrage. The evidence at this point points almost certainly to it.

Dem denials are pathetic and sad.

By the way, here is an accusation that has NO evidence related to it:

Thomas Friedman: no evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, ‘which is why we need a special prosecutor’

Pathetic and sad!

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
Hey brother!

Hey brother!

You are wrong. The evidence suggests that the FBI initiated the FISA request based on an investigation of money transfers between a server in Trump Tower and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. Did you read the article at all? All this information originated from an article by "Heat Street" that itself cited anonymous sources.

And what are the "Dem" denials? Denials of what? Can you be specific about that?

What I'm concerned about is that the president of the United States decided to tweet out serious accusations on the basis of very little evidence. And just a little clarification of that evidence seems to suggest that it was not from a "Bad (or sick) guy" but rather an FBI investigation that apparently went nowhere.

I'm concerned that he might be a narcissist with little self-control and little interest in thinking through anything he does.

zmogus
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/20/2004 - 1:01am
Email our Congresscritters.

Email our Congresscritters. Use this phrase, a favorite of Schumer: "The seriousness of the allegations against former President Obama demands an investigation by Congress."

Rebecca
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 05/07/2008 - 3:17pm
Valerie Jarrett, Loretta

Valerie Jarrett, Loretta Lynch, is the reason I believe Trump. Saying otherwise would be akin to saying that Lois Lerner had nothing to do with targeting conservative 501C3 organizations to deny them tax exemption status. Lynch uses an excuse about Russian ties and all information is relayed to the President with no paper trail. Totally plausible. It's not like the law ever deterred these people from doing whatever they wanted. Every appointee by the President must report TO the President. Obvious logic.

This woman shows her obvious bias

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5yYm3yNrxT4

Lynch was Never a credible appointee. Just another political hack doing Obamas bidding.

Tom C
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 01/03/2006 - 6:00pm
I'm concerned that he might

I'm concerned that he might be a narcissist with little self-control and little interest in thinking through anything he does.

Zzzzz......

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
@ Rebecca

@ Rebecca

You state that "It's not like the law ever deterred these people from doing whatever they wanted." But the evidence shows that the FBI conducted this investigation into money transfers and that the FISA court okayed it. That's the evidence. So what exactly are you saying was illegal? That it is plausible that the FBI and the FISA courts illegally tapped the phones?

Claudius
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 4 hours ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:06pm
Got it. It's boring to you.

@ Tom C

Got it. It's boring to you. That says a lot.

I guess I expected about as much. I wonder if it is a waste of time to post stuff up on this board. Where are the people capable of actual discussion?

Mark T. Cenci
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 22 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2000 - 1:01am
I'm waiting for at least one

I'm waiting for at least one week day news cycle before I pay much attention to this, beyond the reactions expressed.

In the interim, can someone confirm to me that all wire transfers from the USA to Russia trigger wiretaps?

Rebecca
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 05/07/2008 - 3:17pm
The allegation (without proof

The allegation (without proof), possibly used to justify a warrant zIf used at all. It makes a cover story for the real target information. aka What is Trumps strategy for the election and what can we use to defeat him.

What is not currently known is:

1. Were Trumps phones tapped?
2. Who ordered the surveillance?
3. What information was used to get a warrant? (If any was obtained).
4. Who is responsible for the obtaining of such warrant if issued?
5. What evidence was used to obtain such warrant?
6. What information was given to whom
7. If this information is false, who is responsible for distributing false information to the President(Trump)?
8. What ties would this person have to the previous administration?
9. WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT(Obama) KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

Spider
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 06/16/2011 - 3:13pm
Immerse yourself. I like the

Immerse yourself. I like the first one....Newt is quite convincing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwqKuu3d3EM
They did not ’order it’….did they know about it?….classic plausible deniability….go democrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nq281kieVw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9M5HlzCulc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-Kqd5Y9tk0

Cheech
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/15/2014 - 8:56am
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6QLbFi0do

Mark Levin nailed it this morning on Fox. Unlike the chattering skulls & other show pony jerks, he has held a senior position in the DOJ, and knows the system. In short, the manchurian continues to be the seditious liar he has always been..........

Cheech
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/15/2014 - 8:56am
https://www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA6QLbFi0do

duplicate post-please delete.

Pages

Log in to post comments