Trump accuses Obama administration of wiretapping Trump Tower phones

[Michael68]

Also an assertion that the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence deemed worthy enough to investigate via a lengthy, time-consuming probe.

I find it very dangerous to side with a single thin-skinned man with questionable conflicts of interest as opposed to the agencies I previously listed.

Are the childish insults necessary?

 

[flowerz4rabbits]

The issues is if there were FISA orders as reported by the MSM (denied by Clapper) and if there was intentional violations and misuse of FISA. The use of FISA to obtain surveillance is very limited and especially against US persons (need to have evidence of criminal espionage).

If you read this article it outlines the problems and FISA laws clearly and under what conditions they can be sought.
lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

The other issue is that intelligence agencies have said there is no evidence of any connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia. So, this means that they didn’t have enough information for probable cause to get a warrant for investigation in front of a FISA court, so why was one granted and then also what was the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network exactly investigating?

If a FISA warrant was obtained (by potential misuse) it’s very likely Obama through his daily intelligence briefing, or in a call from Loretta Lynch, or the director of the FBI, would be given a heads up. The NYT also reported that intelligence reports based of some of the wiretap communications had been given to the White House.

Where has anyone (including Trump) asserted that there was a misuse of FISA? That is some bizarre claim I haven’t seen anywhere but this forum, presumably in an attempt to “explain away” these assertions from Trump. If that were the case, it would be a very, very, very severe crime of moral turpitude involving a federal judge. Where is your proof? I would love to see it. Or is this, once again - “just speculation?”

No one has said there’s “no evidence” of any connection between Trump and Russia. He encouraged Russia to hack Hillary’s emails during a presidential debate. He has spoken favorably of Putin. We are less than two months into his term and already two members of his cabinet have been shown to have been dishonest about their conversations with Russia. This is why there is an intelligence probe.

I do not get it. Why the protection of Trump to this frightening degree? Do you really believe our entire government, justice department, intelligence agencies, etc. are all corrupt? Or do you believe that it is more likely that he is… I dunno, lying? He has lied plenty of times in the past.

 

[flowerz4rabbits]

Are the childish insults necessary?

“Thin-skinned?” Really?

Come on.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

Are the childish insults necessary?

I’m sorry, but the irony of a Trump supporter saying this is just too rich.

(Not trying to be a jerk, I get that you and I just disagree and that’s fine. But you have to admit, this is a little funny in the context of Trump and his Twitter shotgunning.)

 

[kat07]

Where has anyone (including Trump) asserted that there was a misuse of FISA? That is some bizarre claim I haven’t seen anywhere but this forum, presumably in an attempt to “explain away” these assertions from Trump. If that were the case, it would be a very, very, very severe crime of moral turpitude involving a federal judge. Where is your proof? I would love to see it. Or is this, once again - “just speculation?”

No one has said there’s “no evidence” of any connection between Trump and Russia. He encouraged Russia to hack Hillary’s emails during a presidential debate. He has spoken favorably of Putin. We are less than two months into his term and already two members of his cabinet have been shown to have been dishonest about their conversations with Russia. This is why there is an intelligence probe.

I do not get it. Why the protection of Trump to this frightening degree? Do you really believe our entire government, justice department, intelligence agencies, etc. are all corrupt? Or do you believe that it is more likely that he is… I dunno, lying? He has lied plenty of times in the past.

1. It would not be a Federal Judge. FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the SC.
2. There are numerous reports in the MSM that a FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the election in October. No one knows exactly what’s in that FISA application/warrant.
3. From the article I linked regarding misuse of FISA: "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 constructively 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."

If Trump or his bank servers were under surveillance (as is being reported) the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second FIA application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.

1. You may want to check again what the FBI and U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee have said regarding connections between Trump associates, Trump, and Russians. As said a federal court judge denied Obama’s team a warrant for surveillance on Trump because there was no evidence and the first FISA application which named Trump was DENIED.Further, you can’t just use surveillance on someone based on their rights under the 1st Amendment. If that was the case Madonna would have been wiretapped.

The fact that the Obama Administration tried to get a warrant using Article III through a federal judge and then through a FISA application (both denied) clearly shows that the Obama Administration was specifically trying to target Trump.

 

[TMC]

1. It would not be a Federal Judge. FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the SC.

Just a point of clarification - FISA judges are federal judges, although you are correct that they are appointed to their FISA duties by the Chief Justice.

 

[kat07]

Just a point of clarification - FISA judges are federal judges, although you are correct that they are appointed to their FISA duties by the Chief Justice.

Correct, they are federal district judges but don’t require additional confirmation from the other two branches of government to sit on the FISA court.

It’s an interesting “secret” court with strict restrictions. Some members of Congress have argued that they have been interpreting the surveillance law too broadly, from the urging of Obama.

Remember Snowden revealed that they allowed the government to collect mass amounts of metadata from US telecom companies.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

1. It would not be a Federal Judge. FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the SC.
2. There are numerous reports in the MSM that a FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the election in October. No one knows exactly what’s in that FISA application/warrant.
3. From the article I linked regarding misuse of FISA: "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 constructively 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."

If Trump or his bank servers were under surveillance (as is being reported) the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second FIA application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.

1. You may want to check again what the FBI and U.S. House of Representatives intelligence committee have said regarding connections between Trump associates, Trump, and Russians. As said a federal court judge denied Obama’s team a warrant for surveillance on Trump because there was no evidence and the first FISA application which named Trump was DENIED.Further, you can’t just use surveillance on someone based on their rights under the 1st Amendment. If that was the case Madonna would have been wiretapped.

The fact that the Obama Administration tried to get a warrant using Article III through a federal judge and then through a FISA application (both denied) clearly shows that the Obama Administration was specifically trying to target Trump.

Good points all, kat07.

 

[Michael68]

What happened to all the Democrats saying all Hell would break loose if Trump did not accept the results of the election? Now these fools can’t accept the results of the election. They really don’t mind being and being seen as HYPOCRITICAL.
Really, why all this Russia nonsense? Why have wire taps, then deny them after they have been reported on? Still can’t accept the results of the election. And they thought Trump would be a baby. We have babies in the Democrats party

 

[dvdjs]

The other issue is that intelligence agencies have said there is no evidence of any connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia.

How about a source for this, from all of the agencies.

Maybe you are thinking of something said that is much more limited and nuanced.
Connection? Trump OR associates? Russia?

One doesn’t have to stretch these terms in the slightest to provide many examples to show evidence of a connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia.

 

[Michael68]

How about a source for this, from all of the agencies.

Maybe you are thinking of something said that is much more limited and nuanced.
Connection? Trump OR associates? Russia?

One doesn’t have to stretch these terms in the slightest to provide many examples to show evidence of a connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia.

Then please finally show some evidence if you say it exists. Please shut us all up with your smoking gun!

 

[kat07]

How about a source for this, from all of the agencies.

Maybe you are thinking of something said that is much more limited and nuanced.
Connection? Trump OR associates? Russia?

One doesn’t have to stretch these terms in the slightest to provide many examples to show evidence of a connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia.

There are a lot of sources that are saying so. Here are some.

NYT – "FBI see’s no clear link to Russia"nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

Clapper on MSNBC - But Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was “no evidence” of “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

“We did not include any evidence in our report – and I say ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence – that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.”
weeklystandard.com/trumps-wiretap-claims-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/article/2007096

House Intel Chair - "No evidence of contact between Trump Campaign and Russia."zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-27/chair-house-intel-committee-no-evidence-contact-between-trump-campaign-russia

Trey Gowdy said FBI Comey, CIA Brennan, & Clapper DIA all said no evidence of link between Trump/Russia. - I will have to track down a link to this, but pretty sure this is from an appearance on Fox News.

Nat’l Review - “FBI is not investigating Trump Campaign”
[nationalreview.com/article/445522/russian-election-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-wiretap-claims-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/article/2007096](http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-hacking-fbi-not-investigating-trump-campaign http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-wiretap-claims-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont/article/2007096)

Then as mentioned there were supposedly 2 warrants denied for surveillance on Trump because of no evidence.

As one can see there is a lot of information and contradictory information floating around, and there is also a lot of “senior officials and unnamed sources” these days too.

 

[dvdjs]

There are a lot of sources that are saying so. Here are some

.
As expected, the statements are far, far more limited and nuanced than the blanket statement that you wrote:

… intelligence agencies have said there is no evidence of any connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia.

***Connection. Trump OR associates. Russia.

---

NYT – "FBI see’s no clear link to Russia"nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html
“Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
So far. Conclusive or direct. Mr. Trump. Russian Government.

Clapper on MSNBC - But Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was “no evidence” of “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
Collusion. Trump campaign.
You also forgot to add:

“Not to my knowledge.” “This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.,” Clapper replied, “but at the time I – we had no evidence of such collusion.”

At the time.

Etc. Although I should also point out that Gowdy is not an intelligence agency.

You do get the difference between what you wrote and what these sentences say, don’t you? Lovely disinformation.

 

[Michael68]

.
As expected, the statements are far, far more limited and nuanced than the blanket statement that you wrote:
***Connection. Trump OR associates. Russia.

---

NYT – "FBI see’s no clear link to Russia"nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html
“Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
So far. Conclusive or direct. Mr. Trump. Russian Government.

Clapper on MSNBC - But Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was “no evidence” of “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
Collusion. Trump campaign.

“We did not include any evidence in our report – and I say ‘our,’ that’s NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence – that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.”
***Collusion, Trump campaign ***

You do get the difference between what you wrote and what these sentences say, don’t you? Lovely disinformation.

You do understand what “NO EVIDENCE” means don’t you? Where’s the evidence you are so sticking by when everyone else says there is none? You some kind of psychic superhero or something?

 

[dvdjs]

You do understand what “NO EVIDENCE” means don’t you? Where’s the evidence you are so sticking by when everyone else says there is none? You some kind of psychic superhero or something?

“No evidence of X, involving persons Y, at time T” does not mean: “NO EVIDENCE.”

It does not even mean: “no evidence of any connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia”, unless X=“any connection”, Y=“Trump OR Trump’s associates and Russia”, and T = kai nun kai aei kai eis tous aionas ton aionon.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You do understand what “NO EVIDENCE” means don’t you? Where’s the evidence you are so sticking by when everyone else says there is none? You some kind of psychic superhero or something?

You some kind of psychic superhero or something?

For some reason that made me laugh. Maybe the first stirrings of spring have addled my mind. In a weird way, thanks, Michael68. :clapping:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

“No evidence of X involving persons Y at time T” does not mean: “NO EVIDENCE.”

It does not even mean: “no evidence of any connection between Trump or Trump’s associates and Russia”, unless X=“any connection”, Y=“Trump OR Trump’s associates and Russia”, and T = kai nun kai aei kai eis tous aionas ton aionon.

I will say this------I will be interested mightily to see Trump and Putin finally meet. Maybe Trump will finally have his ideas about Putin changed.

Maybe also we may find out Trump and Putin do not have a “bromance” after all.

 

[kat07]

.
As expected, the statements are far, far more limited and nuanced than the blanket statement that you wrote:
***Connection. Trump OR associates. Russia.

---

NYT – "FBI see’s no clear link to Russia"nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html
“Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”
So far. Conclusive or direct. Mr. Trump. Russian Government.

Clapper on MSNBC - But Clapper then went on to say that to his knowledge there was “no evidence” of “collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
Collusion. Trump campaign.
You also forgot to add:

At the time.

Etc. Although I should also point out that Gowdy is not an intelligence agency.

You do get the difference between what you wrote and what these sentences say, don’t you? Lovely disinformation.

Disinformation NO. Gowdy is not an intelligence agency but he is reporting on what they have informed him. No evidence found includes Trump AND his campaign. It includes what has been reported. “Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.”, “Intelligence officials have said in interviews over the last six weeks that apparent connections between some of Mr. Trump’s aides and Moscow originally compelled them to open a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Republican presidential candidate. Still, they have said that Mr. Trump himself has not become a target. And no evidence has emerged that would link him or anyone else in his business or political circle directly to Russia’s election operations.” "Investigators, the officials said, have become increasingly confident, based on the evidence they have uncovered, that Russia’s direct goal is not to support the election of Mr. Trump, as many Democrats have asserted, but rather to disrupt the integrity of the political system and undermine America’s standing in the world more broadly."

What more do you want? Continuous surveillance of Trump and others in his campaign?If there was anything here I think we would have heard about it by now.

 

[kat07]

I will say this------I will be interested mightily to see Trump and Putin finally meet. Maybe Trump will finally have his ideas about Putin changed.

Maybe also we may find out Trump and Putin do not have a “bromance” after all.

 

[dvdjs]

What more do you want?

Statements that stick to the truth. Perhaps:
Evidence of the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia’s election operations had not yet been found at the time the statement was issued.

It has been hard on this thread to connect on statement to another - for example, on alleged contradictions between various NYT articles, when the words are not used with precision.

You may have not been thinking of other levels kinds of connections with other interests in Russia, involving associates who were, at the time, not in the campaign. But there has been reports of such investigations (eg Page, Manafort), and your original statement covers these; it is not at all clear that ones given by IC officials od.