The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that some of the communications of the Trump transition team were "monitored" after the election as part of an "incidental collection."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/22/re...r-election
Rep Adam Schiff (D) CA struggled to maintain his aura of faux decorum as he attempted to put a happy face on the news. It seems that after Mr Obama extended his hand to the victorious Trump, he then gave him a good hard backside, as the incoming transition team was 'monitored.' And as anybody knows, one thing they were good at was monitoring.
TheRealThing Wrote:The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that some of the communications of the Trump transition team were "monitored" after the election as part of an "incidental collection."
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/22/re...r-election
Rep Adam Schiff (D) CA struggled to maintain his aura of faux decorum as he attempted to put a happy face on the news. It seems that after Mr Obama extended his hand to the victorious Trump, he then gave him a good hard backside, as the incoming transition team was 'monitored.' And as anybody knows, one thing they were good at was monitoring.
You have drunk the Kool Aid
I got nothing against you vector. But I did warn you not to get all excited about the articles in the NYT and the Washington Post, and the ridiculous stuff being said by Schumer Pelosi and Schiff about Trump's wiretapping tweet.
While one could make a technical legal argument about the manner in which the information was gathered, there is no way to dodge the illegality of unmasking those involved or the release of said information to the various agencies and especially the news media. Not to mention that there was obvious design in that all of this information was amassed or separated from the raw data, and then bundled, and distributed in packaged form to whomever.
TheRealThing Wrote:I got nothing against you vector. But I did warn you not to get all excited about the articles in the NYT and the Washington Post, and the ridiculous stuff being said by Schumer Pelosi and Schiff about Trump's wiretapping tweet.
While one could make a technical legal argument about the manner in which the information was gathered, there is no way to dodge the illegality of unmasking those involved or the release of said information to the various agencies and especially the news media. Not to mention that there was obvious design in that all of this information was amassed or separated from the raw data, and then bundled, and distributed in packaged form to whomever.
The sitting President accused his predecessor of a felony, sans credible evidence according to FBI Director, corroborated by Justice Department. Ah, but Representative Nunes, Republican, floats out a tidbit that, in reality, does NOT speak to the tweeted allegation. Don't worry, Vector, Republicans are not capable of the kinds of tactics Democrats use. What a lot of subterfuge and rot, TRT.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:The sitting President accused his predecessor of a felony, sans credible evidence according to FBI Director, corroborated by Justice Department. Ah, but Representative Nunes, Republican, floats out a tidbit that, in reality, does NOT speak to the tweeted allegation. Don't worry, Vector, Republicans are not capable of the kinds of tactics Democrats use. What a lot of subterfuge and rot, TRT.
Right, we can reject Nunes' findings out of hand since he is merely the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which BTW is Constitutionally empowered with OVERSIGHT of the people's affairs relative to the FBI and the CIA and whoever else might happen by in all of this. I'm sure whatever concerns vector may have had are now sufficiently allayed, I know mine are! :biglmao:
Trump is too smart to accuse them of something if he didn't have any proof.
You can bet the farm it happened
The only question is to what extent. Hopefully enough to prosecute the for error administration
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Trump is too smart to accuse them of something if he didn't have any proof.
You can bet the farm it happened
The only question is to what extent. Hopefully enough to prosecute the for error administration
Now you know you'll never get a 'like' out of Gitback talking like that. This will turn out to be devastating for Dems but you won't get any concession from the Obama faithful. LOL, they'll be up all night over at the DNC trying to figure out how to save face.
TheRealThing Wrote:Right, we can reject Nunes' findings out of hand since he is merely the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which BTW is Constitutionally empowered with OVERSIGHT of the people's affairs relative to the FBI and the CIA and whoever else might happen by in all of this. I'm sure whatever concerns vector may have had are now sufficiently allayed, I know mine are! :biglmao:
Nunes for-the-press release does not speak to charging your predecessor with a felony. What Nunes is doing is creating a diversion, a subterfuge, which, even if it has merit, does NOTHING to change the error of President Trump's tweet. Either you don't pay attention, or, eh, that's it; you don't pay attention.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Trump is too smart to accuse them of something if he didn't have any proof.
You can bet the farm it happened
The only question is to what extent. Hopefully enough to prosecute the for error administration
"You can bet the farm" what happened? The sitting President made a very specific accusation, not a general one. The sitting President accused his predecessor of a felony via twitter. One does not disprove that a specific accusation is false by offering a generalized accusation. This still leaves the specific accusation unaddressed. Nice try.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:"You can bet the farm" what happened? The sitting President made a very specific accusation, not a general one. The sitting President accused his predecessor of a felony via twitter. One does not disprove that a specific accusation is false by offering a generalized accusation. This still leaves the specific accusation unaddressed. Nice try.
Now I know once O'Reilly, and Dobbs, and Hannity (and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post BTW), James Binney and the scores of other former intelligence officials, The House Intelligence Committee and the Office of one DJT, eagerly read your posts about the matter (just as they no doubt do every morning) they will lay down their arms and just give up. :hilarious:
But according to Rep Peter King, the President could be implicated here. Of course that was before Sombrero made his bombshell post and blew all that out of the water.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Trump is too smart to accuse them of something if he didn't have any proof.
You can bet the farm it happened
The only question is to what extent. Hopefully enough to prosecute the for error administration
Trump is too smart to say random shit and not back it up? LOL
So we can bet that there were 3-5 million illegal votes in the election? Even though he said it and provided no later proof?
I'm still waiting on him to lock Hillary up too.
Motley Wrote:Trump is too smart to say random shit and not back it up? LOL
So we can bet that there were 3-5 million illegal votes in the election? Even though he said it and provided no later proof?
I'm still waiting on him to lock Hillary up too.
Im still waiting on hillary and her fake polls to win the election :hilarious:
TheRealThing Wrote:Now I know once O'Reilly, and Dobbs, and Hannity (and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post BTW), James Binney and the scores of other former intelligence officials, The House Intelligence Committee and the Office of one DJT, eagerly read your posts about the matter (just as they no doubt do every morning) they will lay down their arms and just give up. :hilarious:
But according to Rep Peter King, the President could be implicated here. Of course that was before Sombrero made his bombshell post and blew all that out of the water.
At times, TRT, as a way of cowardly debate, you act as if the common citizen dare not express an opinion on a POLITICAL forum because the opinion expressed is of absolutely no importance or relevance to the real "somebodys" of the existing power structure. In such moments, you reveal an actual contempt either for opinions not your own or actual free-speech democracy. A sitting President accused his predecessor of committing a felony. The Director of the FBI, corroborated by the Justice Department, asserted the allegation was unfounded. President Trump, in a midnight oil tweet, repeated a scurrilous accusation that is false. Period.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:Im still waiting on hillary and her fake polls to win the election :hilarious:
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by an almost identical margin that many final polls revealed. However, she lost key states that were not projected. Thus, Donald Trump is the elected President, and he midnight-oil tweeted that his predecessor committed a felony, a charge which has been rebuffed as unsubstantiated by the Director of the FBI, corroborated by the Justice Department. Now, you ol' boys go back to talking about how fhe lunar landing was actually conducted on a movie studio lot in a warehouse.
TheRealThing Wrote:I got nothing against you vector. But I did warn you not to get all excited about the articles in the NYT and the Washington Post, and the ridiculous stuff being said by Schumer Pelosi and Schiff about Trump's wiretapping tweet.
While one could make a technical legal argument about the manner in which the information was gathered, there is no way to dodge the illegality of unmasking those involved or the release of said information to the various agencies and especially the news media. Not to mention that there was obvious design in that all of this information was amassed or separated from the raw data, and then bundled, and distributed in packaged form to whomever.
How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick!) guy
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...a-tapped-/
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyis
Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW Low
I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to election
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...ets-rumors
This is Donald's Tweets you be the judge but I believe you are like Nunes and the other Rinos
You have drunk the Kool Aid
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:At times, TRT, as a way of cowardly debate, you act as if the common citizen dare not express an opinion on a POLITICAL forum because the opinion expressed is of absolutely no importance or relevance to the real "somebodys" of the existing power structure. In such moments, you reveal an actual contempt either for opinions not your own or actual free-speech democracy. A sitting President accused his predecessor of committing a felony. The Director of the FBI, corroborated by the Justice Department, asserted the allegation was unfounded. President Trump, in a midnight oil tweet, repeated a scurrilous accusation that is false. Period.
I understand your frustration. When DNC inspired hip shots fail, and when words like zeitgeist or indentured servitude don't impress, one is left with actually substantiating his argument with logic and fact. When in such case one's opinion has been given him by others, defense of that opinion can be a daunting task. My condolences.
MonitorGate will at some point soon get all sorted out, of that I have no doubt. We do disagree however on whether you rise to the level of commonness. True believer liberals, of which you are no doubt one, number only 20% of this nation's voting public. And owing to their intolerance of other views, have therefore stratified beneath the remaining 80% within a dense (pun intended) 20% members only Democratic base. The term 'Wiretap' refers to an outdated method of surveillance, but the term lingers in common use because people understand what it means. But in the technical oblivion which exists between the literal application of the term, and the technologically advanced methods used to 'gather' information in this day, the Democrats have found all the room they need in which to wax ridiculous.
The House Intelligence Committee Chair has said that members of the Trump transition team were surveilled. He knows this because the names of the transition team members were not masked, nor was the text or audio of the conversations in any way redacted. And he knows much, much more.
TheRealThing Wrote:I understand your frustration. When DNC inspired hip shots fail, and when words like zeitgeist or indentured servitude don't impress, one is left with actually substantiating his argument with logic and fact. When in such case one's opinion has been given him by others, defense of that opinion can be a daunting task. My condolences.
MonitorGate will at some point soon get all sorted out, of that I have no doubt. We do disagree however on whether you rise to the level of commonness. True believer liberals, of which you are no doubt one, number only 20% of this nation's voting public. And owing to their intolerance of other views, have therefore stratified beneath the remaining 80% within a dense (pun intended) 20% members only Democratic base. The term 'Wiretap' refers to an outdated method of surveillance, but the term lingers in common use because people understand what it means. But in the technical oblivion which exists between the literal application of the term, and the technologically advanced methods used to 'gather' information in this day, the Democrats have found all the room they need in which to wax ridiculous.
The House Intelligence Committee Chair has said that members of the Trump transition team were surveilled. He knows this because the names of the transition team members were not masked, nor was the text or audio of the conversations in any way redacted. And he knows much, much more.
Unfortunately for you, DunceCap, it was President Trump who retweeted a felonious charge. Now, personally, if he would simply recant or back up just a bit and admit it was a stretch, I don't, for my common part, impugn his credibility. However, it appears his colossal ego won't allow him to do that, and in this, TRT, he is truly YOUR President. Again, the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, state that the felony accusation is unsubstantiated. Ah, TRT, you dance, but you cannot run nor hide from the tweet-mad President.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by an almost identical margin that many final polls revealed. However, she lost key states that were not projected. Thus, Donald Trump is the elected President, and he midnight-oil tweeted that his predecessor committed a felony, a charge which has been rebuffed as unsubstantiated by the Director of the FBI, corroborated by the Justice Department. Now, you ol' boys go back to talking about how fhe lunar landing was actually conducted on a movie studio lot in a warehouse.
Hillary's margin of popular vote advantage was about 2.9 million. Now try to focus here a little bit. In California alone Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 4.5 million. Therefore not only is it unreasonable to build an entire airport on the head of the popular vote pin, the 55 electoral votes attributable from California regardless if Trump's vote total had been zero, went entirely to Hillary Clinton. Even in La-La Land math is an exact science.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Unfortunately for you, DunceCap, it was President Trump who retweeted a felonious charge. Now, personally, if he would simply recant or back up just a bit and admit it was a stretch, I don't, for my common part, impugn his credibility. However, it appears his colossal ego won't allow him to do that, and in this, TRT, he is truly YOUR President. Again, the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, state that the felony accusation is unsubstantiated. Ah, TRT, you dance, but you cannot run nor hide from the tweet-mad President.
Like I said, I can only imagine how tough it is trying to look to be the intelligent one when all you've got to back you up is feelings.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by an almost identical margin that many final polls revealed. However, she lost key states that were not projected. Thus, Donald Trump is the elected President, and he midnight-oil tweeted that his predecessor committed a felony, a charge which has been rebuffed as unsubstantiated by the Director of the FBI, corroborated by the Justice Department. Now, you ol' boys go back to talking about how fhe lunar landing was actually conducted on a movie studio lot in a warehouse.
Im still waiting :biglmao:
TheRealThing Wrote:Like I said, I can only imagine how tough it is trying to look to be the intelligent one when all you've got to back you up is feelings.
Strange to call the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, "feelings." You seem to be under the koolaid-induced state of mind that you are in a position to be "waiting." All of us are waiting for President Trump to retract an accusation of a felony committed by former President Obama, an accusation labeled as "unsubstantiated" by folks way more important than poor common me. You've come unglued, Patti, and we all know it.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Strange to call the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, "feelings." You seem to be under the koolaid-induced state of mind that you are in a position to be "waiting." All of us are waiting for President Trump to retract an accusation of a felony committed by former President Obama, an accusation labeled as "unsubstantiated" by folks way more important than poor common me. You've come unglued, Patti, and we all know it.
LOL, although the 'we' in your case might more aptly be addressed clinically, how can I hope to prevail against a guy who of his own 'knows' more than Antonin Scalia?
CIA whistle-blower claims to have proof Trump was spied on.
Uh oh for barry.
RunItUpTheGut Wrote:CIA whistle-blower claims to have proof Trump was spied on.
Uh oh for barry.
Again, the tweet said that President Obama committed a felony. Keep reaching for the stars.
TheRealThing Wrote:LOL, although the 'we' in your case might more aptly be addressed clinically, how can I hope to prevail against a guy who of his own 'knows' more than Antonin Scalia?
Straw. Enough to request flame retardant protection just for replying.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:Straw. Enough to request flame retardant protection just for replying.
FTR, you evidently believe that you speak for a number of folks on here, as you said 'we all know it.' An assumption I believe to be rooted in self delusion, but perhaps your constituents will want to step forward to identity themselves in your defense.
Secondly, I have routinely sourced my arguments using everything from Scripture, to the founding documents, to the historical record, to articles which specifically address the issue. Whereas you on the other hand, only on the rarest occasions offer anything by way of substantiation. Assumedly because though grafted-in talking points and opinion may carry the day in the friendly confines of the coupon clippers club, more is required should you dare to test a more demanding venue, even if that is the BGR Political forum.
^^ Thought I would give ample time for any of those willing to reveal themselves to step forward. What's it been now, 10 days?
Well it's a great day to be an American. While Dems rail on about the manner in which their questionable political tactics have been revealed to the public, (as always in times past Republicans could be depended upon to help Dems keep their dirty dealings under the protective cover of the swamp) the revelations about former administration surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition team are rolling in. In fact other than the lamestreamers, ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, almost everybody has gotten in on the act. The Daily Caller just reported Susan Rice, that would be Obama's National Security Advisor and chief propagator of the false Benghazi video story, ordered detailed spread sheets produced, and then President Obama subsequently ordered said spread sheets to be distributed 'famously' among the 17 intelligence agencies of the federal government. BTW, anyone other than me remember how the Obama Administration went on and on about the 17 intelligence agencies having concerns about the Trump campaign and it's ties with Russia? :pondering:
Even in this day in time, just saying something does not make it so, though I will admit the disloyal opposition has been successful in disrupting the first 100 days of this President's tenure. As I said though, this will all come out and the more that does come out, the more the Adam Schiff's of this country are made to look the petulant obstructionist. The former administration did surveil the Trump transition team even as it followed the Hillary Clinton two face model of having “both a public and a private position” on matters of governance. And Ted Kopple can ballyhoo his main stream greatness until he turns blue, reasonable people now know that the so-called mainstream media are in the tank for the left. And in spite of their inability to grasp the reality of the situation, it was the people's rejection of their forced fed and narrow ideological pseudo religious and preachy nightly spin, which has the majority of America going elsewhere for their news.
⬆️ The sitting President accused the former President of a felony. To date, the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, have said "no evidence." Thus, TRT, in the finest spirit of your earthly potentate, the above is a smokescreen.
The Urban Sombrero Wrote:⬆️ The sitting President accused the former President of a felony. To date, the FBI Director, corroborated by the Justice Department, have said "no evidence." Thus, TRT, in the finest spirit of your earthly potentate, the above is a smokescreen.
Listen, nobody on here I know of is in any way fooled by your personality/socio-political schisms. But don't get too excited, just relax and enjoy the ride because this is but day one of federal show time.
It will all come out as today, we see that the late breaking revelations are coming too fast to digest. But there are many capable folk whose assignments are to do just that. And I am therefore content to sit back and the allow the real truth to come out. And BTW by all indications, in just the manner in which I have predicted. The former NSA is in jeopardy according to what I have heard suggested by no less than John Bolton, (one of her esteemed predecessors as US Ambassador to the UN).
TheRealThing Wrote:Listen, nobody on here I know of is in any way fooled by your personality/socio-political schisms. But don't get too excited, just relax and enjoy the ride because this is but day one of federal show time.
It will all come out as today, we see that the late breaking revelations are coming too fast to digest. But there are many capable folk whose assignments are to do just that. And I am therefore content to sit back and the allow the real truth to come out. And BTW by all indications, in just the manner in which I have predicted. The former NSA is in jeopardy according to what I have heard suggested by no less than John Bolton, (one of her esteemed predecessors as US Ambassador to the UN).
Funny, you blast the "leftist media" and bunny kiss John Bolton as fair arbiter of truth. What a Patti Partisan. The Mad Tweeter, President Trump, charged his predecessor with a felony. At that point, and not all the smoke, we shall, indeed, see.
Whew, it sure is tiresome to keep dragging the corpse back to the scene of the crime after you pack it down the road a ways time and again.