House gives Trump 7 days to prove Trump Tower was wiretapped

[radical right]

FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs

It’s important to note that the NSA probably has information about you even if you aren’t on this target list. If you have previously communicated with someone who has been targeted, then the NSA already has the content of any emails, instant messages, phone calls, etc. you exchanged with the targeted person. Also, your data is likely in bulk records such as phone metadata and Internet traffic recordings. This is what makes these programs “mass surveillance,” as opposed to traditional wiretaps, which are authorized by individual, specific court orders.

 

[toomuchtime_]

FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs

It’s important to note that the NSA probably has information about you even if you aren’t on this target list. If you have previously communicated with someone who has been targeted, then the NSA already has the content of any emails, instant messages, phone calls, etc. you exchanged with the targeted person. Also, your data is likely in bulk records such as phone metadata and Internet traffic recordings. This is what makes these programs “mass surveillance,” as opposed to traditional wiretaps, which are authorized by individual, specific court orders.

True but irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

[radical right]

You must not be paying attention to the news. Under the law, no one in the Justice Department or the WH should have had access to his identity on the intercept. Clearly laws were broken and questions have been raised about the security of the NSA database.

The DOJ may be stovepiped from that information, but the white house ie president, gets all that information.

 

[radical right]

True but irrelevant to the current discussion.

Read it again.

FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs

It’s important to note that the NSA probably has information about you even if you aren’t on this target list. If you have previously communicated with someone who has been targeted, then the NSA already has the content of any emails, instant messages, phone calls, etc. you exchanged with the targeted person. Also, your data is likely in bulk records such as phone metadata and Internet traffic recordings. This is what makes these programs “mass surveillance,” as opposed to traditional wiretaps, which are authorized by individual, specific court orders.

Whether Flynn or Trump, they would have been recorded when talking to a target.

 

[toomuchtime_]

You must not be paying attention to the news. Under the law, no one in the Justice Department or the WH should have had access to his identity on the intercept. Clearly laws were broken and questions have been raised about the security of the NSA database.

The DOJ may be stovepiped from that information, but the white house ie president, gets all that information.

Not even the WH has the right to spy on Americans without a surveillance warrant.

 

[jc456]

It's clear to me that Trump doesn't take any marching orders from the leftist trolls in this thread!

But he'll have to with Congress...

he does?

 

[toomuchtime_]

True but irrelevant to the current discussion.

Read it again.

FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs

It’s important to note that the NSA probably has information about you even if you aren’t on this target list. If you have previously communicated with someone who has been targeted, then the NSA already has the content of any emails, instant messages, phone calls, etc. you exchanged with the targeted person. Also, your data is likely in bulk records such as phone metadata and Internet traffic recordings. This is what makes these programs “mass surveillance,” as opposed to traditional wiretaps, which are authorized by individual, specific court orders.

Whether Flynn or Trump, they would have been recorded when talking to a target.

Indeed, but by law their identities would have to be masked without a surveillance warrant for them specifically.

 

[jc456]

True but irrelevant to the current discussion.

Read it again.

FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs

It’s important to note that the NSA probably has information about you even if you aren’t on this target list. If you have previously communicated with someone who has been targeted, then the NSA already has the content of any emails, instant messages, phone calls, etc. you exchanged with the targeted person. Also, your data is likely in bulk records such as phone metadata and Internet traffic recordings. This is what makes these programs “mass surveillance,” as opposed to traditional wiretaps, which are authorized by individual, specific court orders.

Whether Flynn or Trump, they would have been recorded when talking to a target.

and what else does it state about that? or are you too naive?

 

[Faun]

Ambassador Kislyak phone was wiretapped ........ That is how they got Flynn and that was presented to your Fuhrer.
If Flynn phone was wiretapped.......... Trump could have used that as an excuse. Don't you think?

Also it is common knowledge that we wiretapped Russian diplomats and track foreign spies. And they do the same to us in Russia. Flynn is a stupid general........ he should know better.

The Russian ambassador's phone was tapped under a FISA warrant which specifies that if an American is on the interecept his identity must be masked, so how did the Obama holdovers in the Justice Department gain access to Flynn's identity unless they violated the law? Clearly, people from the Obama administration violated the law and misused intelligence data for political purposes. This means that even if they did not tap his phones, the Obama administration did illegally surveil at least some of the people associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump transitional government.

So your saying republican senator Nunes committee chairman of senate intelligence is lying?

I'm saying you are too stupid to understand what he said. Nunes said there was no evidence of a wiretap on Trump Tower, he did not say there was no evidence of illegal surveillance of Trump and his associates. In fact we know there was as we have seen in the case of Mike Flynn.

Umm... Trump's claim was that Trump Tower was wiretapped. We now know he was full of shit.

In other words, for you the important issue is not whether Obama corrupted our national security apparatus to illegally surveil the Trump campaign and Trump transitional government but whether Trump should have used the word, surveil, rather than wiretap.

Not the case at all. There's absolutely zero evidence Obama did any such thing. That should be clear to you since the administration keeps changing its story; going from wiretapped phones to surveiled servers, to the NSA to British intelligence; going from inside Trump Tower to outside Trump Tower.

They're all over the place because they're trying to cover for Trump's idiotic tweets which were based off of rightwing media. Because he can't control his temperament, he made a fucking ass of himself by using Twitter to make some outrageous charges about a former president. The administration knows it so they're trying to mitigate the damage by just throwing out any bullshit they can think of, hoping something will stick.

Regrettably for Trump, it's all flying back in his face. But then, he has a history of disparaging Obama. It was fine when he wasn't president, but now, whether he realizes it or not, he's being held to a higher standard. Something he really doesn't seem to grasp.

 

[radical right]

Not even the WH has the right to spy on Americans without a surveillance warrant.

Actually the president can't authorize foreign or domestic surveillance. That has to come from a court order. But as far as being briefed on surveillance results, the president is privy to anything that was collected.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The Russian ambassador's phone was tapped under a FISA warrant which specifies that if an American is on the interecept his identity must be masked, so how did the Obama holdovers in the Justice Department gain access to Flynn's identity unless they violated the law? Clearly, people from the Obama administration violated the law and misused intelligence data for political purposes. This means that even if they did not tap his phones, the Obama administration did illegally surveil at least some of the people associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump transitional government.

So your saying republican senator Nunes committee chairman of senate intelligence is lying?

I'm saying you are too stupid to understand what he said. Nunes said there was no evidence of a wiretap on Trump Tower, he did not say there was no evidence of illegal surveillance of Trump and his associates. In fact we know there was as we have seen in the case of Mike Flynn.

Umm... Trump's claim was that Trump Tower was wiretapped. We now know he was full of shit.

In other words, for you the important issue is not whether Obama corrupted our national security apparatus to illegally surveil the Trump campaign and Trump transitional government but whether Trump should have used the word, surveil, rather than wiretap.

Not the case at all. There's absolutely zero evidence Obama did any such thing. That should be clear to you since the administration keeps changing its story; going from wiretapped phones to surveiled servers, to the NSA to British intelligence; going from inside Trump Tower to outside Trump Tower.

They're all over the place because they're trying to cover for Trump's idiotic tweets which were based off of rightwing media. Because he can't control his temperament, he made a fucking ass of himself by using Twitter to make some outrageous charges about a former president. The administration knows it so they're trying to mitigate the damage by just throwing out any bullshit they can think of, hoping something will stick.

Regrettably for Trump, it's all flying back in his face. But then, he has a history of disparaging Obama. It was fine when he wasn't president, but now, whether he realizes it or not, he's being held to a higher standard. Something he really doesn't seem to grasp.

And yet we know Obama holdovers in the Justice Department or the intelligence agencies breached the security of the NSA database of intercepted communication in order to use Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador for political purposes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not even the WH has the right to spy on Americans without a surveillance warrant.

Actually the president can't authorize foreign or domestic surveillance. That has to come from a court order. But as far as being briefed on surveillance results, the president is privy to anything that was collected.

No, he isn't. There identities of Americans caught in intercepted communications with foreigners is secret without a surveillance warrant on the American. Nor even the president can legally order those identities be revealed without first getting a surveillance warrant.

 

[radical right]

And yet we know Obama holdovers in the Justice Department or the intelligence agencies breached the security of the NSA database of intercepted communication in order to use Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador for political purposes.

It was more like for national security purposes. It's important to know if someone with access to the nations top secrets is sharing them with foreign governments. And Flynn denial of communicating with the Russians raised red flags with the people who knew Flynn was communicating with the Russians.

 

[radical right]

No, he isn't. There identities of Americans caught in intercepted communications with foreigners is secret without a surveillance warrant on the American. Nor even the president can legally order those identities be revealed without first getting a surveillance warrant.

You confuse revealing the information with the president being briefed on the information.

 

[jc456]

And yet we know Obama holdovers in the Justice Department or the intelligence agencies breached the security of the NSA database of intercepted communication in order to use Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador for political purposes.

It was more like for national security purposes. It's important to know if someone with access to the nations top secrets is sharing them with foreign governments. And Flynn denial of communicating with the Russians raised red flags with the people who knew Flynn was communicating with the Russians.

well again, it needed a warrant like you were already told. one didn't exist. can't you fking understand anything?

 

[radical right]

well again, it needed a warrant like you were already told. one didn't exist. can't you fking understand anything?

There was a FISA warrant, either continuous of a renewal on the Russian embassy and or Russian personal within the embassy.

 

[jc456]

well again, it needed a warrant like you were already told. one didn't exist. can't you fking understand anything?

There was a FISA warrant, either continuous of a renewal on the Russian embassy and or Russian personal within the embassy.

no fool you need a warrant on the US side of that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

And yet we know Obama holdovers in the Justice Department or the intelligence agencies breached the security of the NSA database of intercepted communication in order to use Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador for political purposes.

It was more like for national security purposes. It's important to know if someone with access to the nations top secrets is sharing them with foreign governments. And Flynn denial of communicating with the Russians raised red flags with the people who knew Flynn was communicating with the Russians.

No would have known Flynn had had that communication with the Russian ambassador if they had illegally not violated the security of the NSA database. If some one had security concerns about Flynn, under the law they had to go to a federal court for a surveillance warrant for him before going into the NSA database. This is just another example of the widespread corruption Obama introduced into the IRS, the intelligence services, the Justice Department and even into the federal courts.

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, he isn't. There identities of Americans caught in intercepted communications with foreigners is secret without a surveillance warrant on the American. Nor even the president can legally order those identities be revealed without first getting a surveillance warrant.

You confuse revealing the information with the president being briefed on the information.

Under the law no one would have had access to Flynn's identity on that intercept unless a surveillance warrant had been issued for him, so no one could have legally briefed the President on it.

 

[jc456]

And yet we know Obama holdovers in the Justice Department or the intelligence agencies breached the security of the NSA database of intercepted communication in order to use Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador for political purposes.

It was more like for national security purposes. It's important to know if someone with access to the nations top secrets is sharing them with foreign governments. And Flynn denial of communicating with the Russians raised red flags with the people who knew Flynn was communicating with the Russians.

then you need a warrant as you've now been told for the fourth time from me. Let's see it.