(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This is actually what I had predicted in another thread with the wiretapping allegation came out:

That Trump and his team were "incidentally" wiretapped under a valid FISA order and the target of the FISA order was some foreign national. But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

(03-23-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This is actually what I had predicted in another thread with the wiretapping allegation came out:

That Trump and his team were "incidentally" wiretapped under a valid FISA order and the target of the FISA order was some foreign national. But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

(03-23-2017 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This is actually what I had predicted in another thread with the wiretapping allegation came out:

That Trump and his team were "incidentally" wiretapped under a valid FISA order and the target of the FISA order was some foreign national. But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

The term that may start to get thrown around on this is "reverse targeting".

It appears that in the very initial surveillance, that neither Trump nor anyone from his campaign was caught on the surveillance at all, but that their names came up between two foreigners under surveillance. The citizen names should have been protected and masked, but someone unmasked them.

Then SOMEONE went to a FISA court to get wiretaps set up on the people who was caught up in the initial surveillance, which ended up wiretapping Trump and some of the transition team members.

The reason this part is extremely fishy is because the initial surveillance, where Trump and the transition members names were merely mentioned by others, was said to have little to no intelligence value whatsoever.

We are starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together on how Obama "wiretapped" Trump. At a high level the pieces are coming together. And now we are starting to see the cockroaches scurry when the light is turned on them. The NSA is cooperating with Nunes. The FBI is not. You have a known SERIOUS crime committed (the releasing of classified material, communications, and civilian protected names) and the FBI doesnt want to cooperate in investigating that crime. Hell, Comey wouldnt even commit to investigating it on Monday.

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yet another thing that only happened because Obama.

Leaks.

Remember in Obama's 2nd term, everything was still all Bush's fault? You regressives seem to have forgotten, but I 'member.

Nope. I don't. Perhaps you can provide all the examples of us doing that?

(03-22-2017 05:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So...let's go to the score cards...

Releasing the Podesta e-mails, in the best interest of the nation.
Unmasking Flynn, et. al., that's a problem.

That about catch us up to speed?

Why aren't you as upset abut the laws of this country being broken that suppose to protect each of us as you are about a email hack?

Tell me which one is more damning to the people of this country.

Spying on us all then breaking federal laws by keeping and then leaking that information?

Or a fool clicking on a link maybe sent by Russians and then that info gets released?

If we can't believe the law of the land is going to protect us from our own government. Then you have a major fault in trust

If a russian hacks the DNC and releases things that were wrote by those people...

you have someone that broke a law but that someone is not in control of all the ,laws in the country we live in. I see a huge difference...

yet you don't seem to be worried one that affects us all

How do you know I'm not upset? Trust me, if I started a thread about everything I'm upset about as I approach my older years, I'd get banned for spamming the board.

To be honest...nearly all my time here is spent debunking the utter nonsense that continually gets posted...I really don't have any time left to air my grievances...lol

(03-23-2017 08:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:13 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:40 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Yet another thing that only happened because Obama.

Leaks.

Remember in Obama's 2nd term, everything was still all Bush's fault? You regressives seem to have forgotten, but I 'member.

Nope. I don't. Perhaps you can provide all the examples of us doing that?

We can do that, but there are a lot of tanker trucks in those threads. That may trigger you.

(03-23-2017 07:52 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This is actually what I had predicted in another thread with the wiretapping allegation came out:

That Trump and his team were "incidentally" wiretapped under a valid FISA order and the target of the FISA order was some foreign national. But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:52 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  This is actually what I had predicted in another thread with the wiretapping allegation came out:

That Trump and his team were "incidentally" wiretapped under a valid FISA order and the target of the FISA order was some foreign national. But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:52 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:30 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Original intent was a red herring, then the scope was expanded maybe illegally.

How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:52 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  How was it legal and incidental and why were they listening? That's what I want to know.

It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:52 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  It's legal in that the FISA court Issued a warrant to surveillance a foreign national. I personally hate the FISA court as a rubber stamp or kangaroo court. That said, it could all be pretextual to "incidentally" listen to Trump and his team. Or trump and his team could have been speaking to a legitimate foreign Intel target. It smells though.

That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

(03-23-2017 02:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  That is a potential explanation, but it is speculation. As far as I know, nobody as confirmed this phantom FISA warrant and everyone is on record denying that any such warrant was asked for or ever existed. If one does in fact exist, who asked for it? If not, how was it legal and incidental, who leaked it, and were they authorized to leak it or were they rogue?

that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

Why?

Don't you want to get to the bottom of who is leaking the information?

(03-23-2017 02:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

Why?

Don't you want to get to the bottom of who is leaking the information?

I do, which is why a SP is the donk's worst nightmare.

(03-23-2017 02:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:09 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  that's what I'm concerned about too. Nobody wants to touch the FISA question. Are they/we afraid of the answer? Scary stuff potentially.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

Why?

Don't you want to get to the bottom of who is leaking the information?

Yes. But who could we trust? If it turned up bad news for the Demons the would cry foul and vice versa. Let's get the Russians to do it. Or Loretta Lynch or both that way we'd have someone on our side. LOL

Fit, the leaks are obviously politically motivated. Getting to the bottom of who did it and with whom information was shared could be explosive. Rest assured there's one man in DC who doesn't fear the truth.

(03-23-2017 02:31 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

Why?

Don't you want to get to the bottom of who is leaking the information?

Yes. But who could we trust? If it turned up bad news for the Demons the would cry foul and vice versa. Let's get the Russians to do it. Or Loretta Lynch or both that way we'd have someone on our side. LOL

Rowdy Gowdy.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-23-2017 06:56 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  But that they also didn't find anything of a value as that would have been leaked to the media already.

(03-23-2017 08:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  was said to have little to no intelligence value whatsoever.

Of course this is correct.

You really think if Obama did wiretap Trump and found something he could use to prevent him from being elected, he just sat on it???

DUH

(03-23-2017 08:38 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  SERIOUS crime committed

Just like you said Hillary committed, right??

So Obama will be behind bars very soon, just like Hillary is, right??

hahahah

(03-23-2017 07:29 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  She's lucky to not be locked up already.

Sure thing

(03-23-2017 02:31 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:27 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 01:48 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 11:13 AM)bullet Wrote:  Yeah. Does make you wonder if the FBI interview was scripted. Lots of important questions not asked.

Perhaps there should be an independent investigation.

A Special Prosecutor would be the donks worst nightmare.

Why?

Don't you want to get to the bottom of who is leaking the information?

Yes. But who could we trust? If it turned up bad news for the Demons the would cry foul and vice versa. Let's get the Russians to do it. Or Loretta Lynch or both that way we'd have someone on our side. LOL

My vote is for Merrick Garland. The Republicans stole his chance to be a part of history. Let see them try to steal it from him again. Garland taking down Trump would be poetic justice.

(03-22-2017 05:53 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If any person thinks the government is wire tapping and getting information from that tap and it involves the campaign of the person running for president and it's not getting approval from someone in the oval office...

you are naive as hell or just plain dumb or just sticking your fingers in your ears and not really thinking about this. No way in hell someone close to President Obama did not know about this and ran it past him. Does that mean the President ordered the tap of anything like that? No it doesn't. But it means he was aware of it. That's why you got the careful worded released statement.

Just catching up a bit here. Seems a certain someone may have been unusually prescient:

Quote:If that f – – – ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses!

Funny thing happened on the way to the landslide.