BREAKING: CNN admit Paul Manafort was wiretapped

[iceberg]

the fact that FISA says what they did was illegal you seem to bypass and never directly address.

you tell me what the role of FISA is and why their saying this was illegal is not relevant and we'll go from there. the rest of your distraction shit i'm not playing.

Yes, they simultaneously approved and disapproved of the surveillance.

As an FYI, presidents don't order surveillance.

so you still won't address it.

it was approved due to a fake dossier they used to get the permission.

now - keep calling me crazy and refusing to simply do 2 things:

1) what is the role of FISA
2) why is their saying "illegal" not relevant?

nothing else i give a shit about because you won't answer core questions to this issue, just dance.

Your entire premise is flawed.

again - i'm not sure what part of "i'm not playing your sideshow bob bullshit distractions" your mind can't comprehend but if you can't understand a simple question, this complex shit is well beyond you.

this is not MY premise for you to gloat over.
this is not MY call to say it's illegal.
you are not arguing with *me* at this point but FISA.

FISA says this was illegal.

1) what is the role of FISA
2) what is their statement not relevant
3) my "premise" has zero issue on the above 2. either answer those 2 (finally) or just admit you don't know.

the rest of us know you don't know, but it would be refreshing for you to do 1 of 2 things at this point.

1) answer a direct question
2) admit you don't know.

you can war and peace my wall again but unless it answers the 2 questions you're taking the life from your keyboard w/o a good reason.

Snowflakes avoid answering tough questions at all costs. The best you can hope for is

View attachment 150021

yep. only this time i'm not playing the distractions or bullshit. either answer the question or just admit you got nothing. all this "intentional confusion" is what got us mired in the crap we are as a country.

 

[easyt65]

Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

'Random'? It is all part of a pattern of Barry's continued violations of both Constitution and law, his ceaseless victimizing of American citizens by illegally spying on them and using the IRS to punish those who opposed him. There isn't anything 'random' about it.

The numerous acts of his administration against Trump during the election is more evidence of his trying to control the outcome through illegal means.

 

[bodecea]

The president does not just call up Justice and tell them to break the law on his behalf, nor is any conceivable AG going to cooperate with such a clearly illegal order.

Which is while Obama, Lynch, and all the rest of them belong in prison for life.

We keep hearing that will happen any day now...any day now...any day now...

 

[bodecea]

Obama didn't wiretap Trump.

Repeating the same lie, over and over, isn't really going to help you.

Yes he fuckin' did. Denying it is pathetic. He and his criminal cohorts started some shit that I hope Trump pays back in spades.

EVERY MOTHERFUCKER THAT THE DEMOCRATS RUN FOR OFFICE WILL BE WIRETAPPED!!! FUCK YOU WATERGATE COMMIES!!!

Oh dear! The trumpanzees are upset now.....

 

[easyt65]

The president does not just call up Justice and tell them to break the law on his behalf, nor is any conceivable AG going to cooperate with such a clearly illegal order.

Which is while Obama, Lynch, and all the rest of them belong in prison for life.

We keep hearing that will happen any day now...any day now...any day now...

Water is wet
Snow is cold
Democrats are protected from indictment / criminal charges for their crimes...

 

[bodecea]

Grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Not hard to get an indictment.

So...this is going to be the trumpanzee excuse once indictments show up?

If this is true, why can't the RWrs even get an indictment on Hillary after all this time?

 

[bodecea]

WIRETAPPED ANUSES!!!!!

Do tell............

 

[easyt65]

Obama didn't wiretap Trump.

Repeating the same lie, over and over, isn't really going to help you.

Yes he fuckin' did. Denying it is pathetic. He and his criminal cohorts started some shit that I hope Trump pays back in spades.

EVERY MOTHERFUCKER THAT THE DEMOCRATS RUN FOR OFFICE WILL BE WIRETAPPED!!! FUCK YOU WATERGATE COMMIES!!!

Oh dear! The trumpanzees are upset now.....

Won't happen....the GOP doesn't do things like this. As Democrats have proven, only Democrats do things like this...and never seem to get punished for it. If the GOP does do it, they are obviously better at keeping it a secret.

 

[iceberg]

You can't explain your position?
Where/when has,"Obama listening to Trump" ever been established?

Obama and his administration's actions make the case.

Obama has a past history of continually violating the Constitution and Rule of law as well as he and his Cabinet members lying their assess off:

- Illegally spied on Americans, reporters, the media, the US Senate, and the USSC
- Illegally used the IRS as a weapon against citizens
- His 1st US AG became the 1st US AG / Presidential Cabinet member to be CENSURED for his perjury
- Clapper perjured himself about illegal spying on US citizens but was given a 2nd chance to tell the truth before Congress to avoid Perjury Charges
- IRS chief Koskinen was caught Perjuring himself before Congress but was also protected by Barry
- Brennan was caught perjuring himself - protected by Barry
- Comey perjured himself and may be brought before Congress to testify again
- Comey testified about lynch's (Obama's 2nd criminal US AGY Obstruction
- Obama has lied just about everything: the ACA, Not knowing about Hillary's server until learning about it in the news, 'the video', the IRS targeting, etc...

Why would Barry worry about FISA and legit warrants when he had already been illegally spying on Americans, the media, the US Senate, the USSC, etc? To check the boxes, maybe, but would certainly not let a little thing like the law or the Constitution stand in the way of what he wanted...as he repeatedly proved.

So many illegal activities have been exposed and so many lies and cover-ups that Obama and his administration has no more credibility, as more and more of his crimes keep getting exposed.

Well that settles It!
Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

A president does not order surveillance. They find out after the fact. They don't even know the identity of the target without a formal request that it be unmasked.

excuse me - but what assnugget won't answer my simple (2) questions but instead dumps a bunch of shit down that has nothing to do with answering a very simple question:

1) role of FISA:
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - Wikipedia
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.[1] Its powers have evolved to the point that it has been called "almost a parallel Supreme Court".[2]

so - their job to dole these warrants out.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

and what did they say/find about all this?

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

then:
"Since 2011, NSA's minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court."

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.'"

established: their role to determine the legality of how this is conducted.
established: "serious 4th amendment issue"

now you need to come up with why FISA is wrong.

not me. not anyone on here. but FISA, the very agency who's job it is to determine if people are right or wrong in how they use the power given to them by FISA.

or are you going to:
"just dump armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case"

and then yell at others for replying in the very fashion you orchestrate.

OF WHICH is why i'm not playing sideshow bob shit.

so - you can't answer, you don't have shit, and you know you are full of shit and can only deflect in hopes of getting some shot in so you can giggle out of the convo and hope people forget what an ass you made of yourself.

have a nice day.

 

[easyt65]

Grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. Not hard to get an indictment.

So...this is going to be the trumpanzee excuse once indictments show up? If this is true, why can't the RWrs even get an indictment on Hillary after all this time?

Democrats have shown 'judge shopping' eventually works, as it is easier to find a LIBERAL judge more interested in legislating from the bench than with Conservatives.

And don't play the 'stupid' game. None of the criminal Liberals - Holder, Hillary, Clapper, Koskinen, Brennan, Comey, Lynch - were ever going to be indicted as long as Obama was President and he owned the DOJ /US AG, FBI, CIA, etc....

 

[easyt65]

You can't explain your position?
Where/when has,"Obama listening to Trump" ever been established?

Obama and his administration's actions make the case.

Obama has a past history of continually violating the Constitution and Rule of law as well as he and his Cabinet members lying their assess off:

- Illegally spied on Americans, reporters, the media, the US Senate, and the USSC
- Illegally used the IRS as a weapon against citizens
- His 1st US AG became the 1st US AG / Presidential Cabinet member to be CENSURED for his perjury
- Clapper perjured himself about illegal spying on US citizens but was given a 2nd chance to tell the truth before Congress to avoid Perjury Charges
- IRS chief Koskinen was caught Perjuring himself before Congress but was also protected by Barry
- Brennan was caught perjuring himself - protected by Barry
- Comey perjured himself and may be brought before Congress to testify again
- Comey testified about lynch's (Obama's 2nd criminal US AGY Obstruction
- Obama has lied just about everything: the ACA, Not knowing about Hillary's server until learning about it in the news, 'the video', the IRS targeting, etc...

Why would Barry worry about FISA and legit warrants when he had already been illegally spying on Americans, the media, the US Senate, the USSC, etc? To check the boxes, maybe, but would certainly not let a little thing like the law or the Constitution stand in the way of what he wanted...as he repeatedly proved.

So many illegal activities have been exposed and so many lies and cover-ups that Obama and his administration has no more credibility, as more and more of his crimes keep getting exposed.

Well that settles It!
Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

A president does not order surveillance. They find out after the fact. They don't even know the identity of the target without a formal request that it be unmasked.

excuse me - but what assnugget won't answer my simple (2) questions but instead dumps a bunch of shit down that has nothing to do with answering a very simple question:

1) role of FISA:
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - Wikipedia
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.[1] Its powers have evolved to the point that it has been called "almost a parallel Supreme Court".[2]

so - their job to dole these warrants out.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

and what did they say/find about all this?

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

then:
"Since 2011, NSA's minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court."

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.'"

established: their role to determine the legality of how this is conducted.
established: "serious 4th amendment issue"

now you need to come up with why FISA is wrong.

not me. not anyone on here. but FISA, the very agency who's job it is to determine if people are right or wrong in how they use the power given to them by FISA.

or are you going to:
"just dump armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case"

and then yell at others for replying in the very fashion you orchestrate.

OF WHICH is why i'm not playing sideshow bob shit.

so - you can't answer, you don't have shit, and you know you are full of shit and can only deflect in hopes of getting some shot in so you can giggle out of the convo and hope people forget what an ass you made of yourself.

have a nice day.

You can't explain your position?
Where/when has,"Obama listening to Trump" ever been established?

Obama and his administration's actions make the case.

Obama has a past history of continually violating the Constitution and Rule of law as well as he and his Cabinet members lying their assess off:

- Illegally spied on Americans, reporters, the media, the US Senate, and the USSC
- Illegally used the IRS as a weapon against citizens
- His 1st US AG became the 1st US AG / Presidential Cabinet member to be CENSURED for his perjury
- Clapper perjured himself about illegal spying on US citizens but was given a 2nd chance to tell the truth before Congress to avoid Perjury Charges
- IRS chief Koskinen was caught Perjuring himself before Congress but was also protected by Barry
- Brennan was caught perjuring himself - protected by Barry
- Comey perjured himself and may be brought before Congress to testify again
- Comey testified about lynch's (Obama's 2nd criminal US AGY Obstruction
- Obama has lied just about everything: the ACA, Not knowing about Hillary's server until learning about it in the news, 'the video', the IRS targeting, etc...

Why would Barry worry about FISA and legit warrants when he had already been illegally spying on Americans, the media, the US Senate, the USSC, etc? To check the boxes, maybe, but would certainly not let a little thing like the law or the Constitution stand in the way of what he wanted...as he repeatedly proved.

So many illegal activities have been exposed and so many lies and cover-ups that Obama and his administration has no more credibility, as more and more of his crimes keep getting exposed.

Well that settles It!
Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

A president does not order surveillance. They find out after the fact. They don't even know the identity of the target without a formal request that it be unmasked.

excuse me - but what assnugget won't answer my simple (2) questions but instead dumps a bunch of shit down that has nothing to do with answering a very simple question:

1) role of FISA:
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - Wikipedia
The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court) is a U.S. federal court established and authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Such requests are made most often by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Congress created FISA and its court as a result of the recommendations by the U.S. Senate's Church Committee.[1] Its powers have evolved to the point that it has been called "almost a parallel Supreme Court".[2]

so - their job to dole these warrants out.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

and what did they say/find about all this?

"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."

then:
"Since 2011, NSA's minimization procedures have prohibited use of U.S.-person identifiers to query the results of upstream Internet collection under Section 702. The October 26, 2016 Notice informed the Court that NSA analysts had been conducting such queries in violation of that prohibition, with much greater frequency than had previously been disclosed to the Court."

"At the October 26, 2016 hearing, the Court ascribed the government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing to an institutional 'lack of candor' on NSA's part and emphasized that 'this is a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.'"

established: their role to determine the legality of how this is conducted.
established: "serious 4th amendment issue"

now you need to come up with why FISA is wrong.

not me. not anyone on here. but FISA, the very agency who's job it is to determine if people are right or wrong in how they use the power given to them by FISA.

or are you going to:
"just dump armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case"

and then yell at others for replying in the very fashion you orchestrate.

OF WHICH is why i'm not playing sideshow bob shit.

so - you can't answer, you don't have shit, and you know you are full of shit and can only deflect in hopes of getting some shot in so you can giggle out of the convo and hope people forget what an ass you made of yourself.

have a nice day.

Waiting for a snowflake to be intellectually honest, to answer your question? Here - this may help:

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Probable cause is required for both FISA and domestic surveilance. The fact that surveillance happened and has been used in the investigation is proof of it's legality. No prosecutor would build a case on questionable evidence. You'd do well to believe that not only was the surveillance justified and legal but it yeilded substance used to further the investigation.

the fact that FISA says what they did was illegal you seem to bypass and never directly address.

you tell me what the role of FISA is and why their saying this was illegal is not relevant and we'll go from there. the rest of your distraction shit i'm not playing.

Yes, they simultaneously approved and disapproved of the surveillance.

As an FYI, presidents don't order surveillance.

so you still won't address it.

it was approved due to a fake dossier they used to get the permission.

now - keep calling me crazy and refusing to simply do 2 things:

1) what is the role of FISA
2) why is their saying "illegal" not relevant?

nothing else i give a shit about because you won't answer core questions to this issue, just dance.

Your entire premise is flawed.

again - i'm not sure what part of "i'm not playing your sideshow bob bullshit distractions" your mind can't comprehend but if you can't understand a simple question, this complex shit is well beyond you.

this is not MY premise for you to gloat over.
this is not MY call to say it's illegal.
you are not arguing with *me* at this point but FISA.

FISA says this was illegal.

1) what is the role of FISA
2) what is their statement not relevant
3) my "premise" has zero issue on the above 2. either answer those 2 (finally) or just admit you don't know.

the rest of us know you don't know, but it would be refreshing for you to do 1 of 2 things at this point.

1) answer a direct question
2) admit you don't know.

you can war and peace my wall again but unless it answers the 2 questions you're taking the life from your keyboard w/o a good reason.

You can stomp your feet all you'd like. It doesn't mean your point is either clear or owed a serious response.
I know what the role of FISA is but it's not clear you do with the arguments you make. Hence the flawed premise.
You rely on Tyler Durden to get your information and then extrapolate to make claims that aren't even made in your link.
Manafort's name is not mentioned even once, it does not cover the time frame in which Manafort first came under surveillance and in fact, doesn't mention anyone associated with Trump at all. So really there is nothing you presented that was shown to be relevant to the discussion at all.

 

[Faun]

take Crooked Obama to jail. lock him up!

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics

Remember those days when you called liberals a bunch of terrorist sympathizers because they did not like the shaky legal grounds that made the FISA courts the final say on the legality of any given surveillance? This is entirely legal because FISA said so. Don't like it? We told you so years ago when all you could do is kiss Bush ass.

First, FISA is a Carter creation. Second, it is not independent, it must be initiated by the administration. Dumbass.

By the Justice Department and the FBI, not the administration.

They wok for the Administration. They don't even have to get a warrant, they surveil for year without one.

Nice wordsmithing, but the DoJ is a Department which falls under the Executive branch whose head is a member of the president's cabinet. That places the Attorney General on the administration; no one else in the DoJ and certainly not the Department itself. The FBI, which also falls under the Executive branch, reports to the DoJ, not the president. No members of the FBI are on either the president's cabinet or their administration.

As far as warrants not needed for a year, I'm unaware of any wiretapping allowed on a U.S. citizen for that period without a warrant issued by a FISC court. You have a link to a verifiable website corroborating that?

 

[BlindBoo]

That's funny. The Circus.

I hear they're already getting that cell next to Hillary, Lois, and Huma ready for Paul.

 

[easyt65]

You can stomp your feet all you'd like. It doesn't mean your point is either clear or owed a serious response.

TRANSLATION:

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

'Random'? It is all part of a pattern of Barry's continued violations of both Constitution and law, his ceaseless victimizing of American citizens by illegally spying on them and using the IRS to punish those who opposed him. There isn't anything 'random' about it.

The numerous acts of his administration against Trump during the election is more evidence of his trying to control the outcome through illegal means.

Yes, random. You did not connect any dots or even present a cohesive argument. You compiled a list and said, "See, I told you so!".

 

[Peach]

Bill was working for the KGB during the election...

Putin claims the KGB, he worked for, no longer exist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The president does not just call up Justice and tell them to break the law on his behalf, nor is any conceivable AG going to cooperate with such a clearly illegal order.

Which is while Obama, Lynch, and all the rest of them belong in prison for life.

We keep hearing that will happen any day now...any day now...any day now...

Water is wet
Snow is cold
Democrats are protected from indictment / criminal charges for their crimes...

Democrats are protected from indictment / criminal charges for their crimes...

Yep, that's far more likely than you're just always wrong about Democrats and their criminality.

 

[easyt65]

Yes, random. You did not connect any dots or even present a cohesive argument. You compiled a list and said, "See, I told you so!".

Like I said, all you're doing is:



Didn't connect the dots?

Obama illegally spies on American citizens, illegally spies on reporters, illegally spies on the US senate, illegally spies on the USSC...while he and his administration lies their assess off / commits perjury every step of the way.... Trump said he was being spied on - snowflakes ridiculed him. Now we find out Barry was spying on Manafort - and potentially incidentally spied on Trump while doing so - before, during, and after the election.

You're right - I did not connect the dots...because there are no 'dots' - It's all one big huge f*ing DOT!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can stomp your feet all you'd like. It doesn't mean your point is either clear or owed a serious response.

TRANSLATION:



View attachment 150025

Translation:
Dude made a stupid point and easilyfooled65 won't touch it.