House gives Trump 7 days to prove Trump Tower was wiretapped

[defcon4]

Felony highlighted for the Progs

"WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

so, it won't change anything, in fact, if I were trump I'd just tweet it again. and then what will happen from the left's pretendland politics?

What does anything have to do with the"left"? Trump made the allegation and the Republican congress demanded proof. You know, just as I do, that he has none

so? who fking cares. he has no alliance with them. you still haven't figured that out yet have you Einy?

Trump has a responsibility to tell the truth for once in his miserable life

Responsibility to whom?

Every American citizen.

 

[Flopper]

The New York times reported that it was wiretapped.....why don't they just reveal their sources....?

At no point does the article make the assertion that Obama “ordered” a wiretapping of Trump or that any such surveillance took place at Trump Tower in New York.

Instead, the Times story speaks to a broader FBI investigation of possible links between unnamed Russian officials and Trump associates.

why though? based on what exactly? I've yet to see the evidence.

The investigation of possible links between unnamed Russian officials and Trump associates? There is plenty of evidence of links between Trump associates and Russian officials and no evidence of Obama wiretapping Trump as he claimed.

 

[Reasonable]

"When you dig yourself a hole, you don't keep digging."
Chris Wallace
Fox News

 

[Reasonable]

The British is pissed off. This has become an international incident.

The Liar in Chief is fucking crazy.

 

[Faun]

The first I heard of it was when the White House asked him to resign over his Russian connection.

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.

LOL

You don't possess enough evidence to factually state laws were clearly broken.

Clearly we do have enough evidence since there is no way anyone would have known about Flynn's identity on that intercept without breaking the law, but to Obama supporters, as with Obama himself, it's politics that counts, not policy and not even national security.

LOLOL

You don't even know who may have leaked the information. The law does allow for exceptions. Without knowing who divulged it, you don't know that the law was violated.

(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.​

We are talking about breaching an NSA database, you moron, not eavesdropping on conversations. Sally Yates was acting AG when she received the information on Flynn, so she knew without a warrant it couldn't have been obtained legally, yet she used it anyway to get Flynn fired instead of seeking to indict the person who illegally unmasked Flynn's identity.

No, you don't know that. You don't know who told her nor do you know how that person obtained the information. Not that your ignorance on those matters will prevent you from leaping head first into assumptions. Carry on.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The British is pissed off. This has become an international incident.

The Liar in Chief is fucking crazy.

That's because Spicer in his press briefing said that it was British spying that provided Obama the information, and it was done that way so that ther3e would be no American intelligence fingerprints on it.

Yeah, Britain is pissed that Trump is trying to use them as a stooge for the things they can't prove.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[Reasonable]

The British is pissed off. This has become an international incident.

The Liar in Chief is fucking crazy.

That's because Spicer in his press briefing said that it was British spying that provided Obama the information, and it was done that way so that ther3e would be no American intelligence fingerprints on it.

Yeah, Britain is pissed that Trump is trying to use them as a stooge for the things they can't prove.

You can try to polish that turd but in the end it's still a turd.
Britain's top spies say Trump's claims they helped wiretap him are "nonsense"

 

[ABikerSailor]

And that joke he told about himself and Merkle fell flat on it's face, you could see she did not find it funny.

What's even worse, is he never even shook her hand, even after a reporter asked if they were going to shake hands, she asked him, and he ignored her.

Yep, way to treat one of our strongest allies.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We are talking about breaching an NSA database, you moron, not eavesdropping on conversations. Sally Yates was acting AG when she received the information on Flynn, so she knew without a warrant it couldn't have been obtained legally, yet she used it anyway to get Flynn fired instead of seeking to indict the person who illegally unmasked Flynn's identity.

Do you believe that if Osama BinLaden called up the boston marthon bombers, that we couldn't listen in.

We could if the things the bombers said on the intercept while their identities were still masked were worrisome enough for the FBI to go to a court and get a surveillance warrant, but not otherwise.

 

[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.

LOL

You don't possess enough evidence to factually state laws were clearly broken.

Clearly we do have enough evidence since there is no way anyone would have known about Flynn's identity on that intercept without breaking the law, but to Obama supporters, as with Obama himself, it's politics that counts, not policy and not even national security.

LOLOL

You don't even know who may have leaked the information. The law does allow for exceptions. Without knowing who divulged it, you don't know that the law was violated.

(2)(a)(i) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.​

We are talking about breaching an NSA database, you moron, not eavesdropping on conversations. Sally Yates was acting AG when she received the information on Flynn, so she knew without a warrant it couldn't have been obtained legally, yet she used it anyway to get Flynn fired instead of seeking to indict the person who illegally unmasked Flynn's identity.

No, you don't know that. You don't know who told her nor do you know how that person obtained the information. Not that your ignorance on those matters will prevent you from leaping head first into assumptions. Carry on.

We both know that without a surveillance warrant on Flynn, no one could have legally known Flynn was the person on that intercept, and Sally Yates knew there was no surveillance warrant on Flynn, so she knew that anyone who brought that information to her was committing a crime and as the acting AG, the highest law enforcement official in the US, she knew it was her duty to arrest him or her, but instead she chose to become complicit in his crime by divulging the information she should never have had. This is just one more example of the "Obama effect" of introducing corruption in many areas of government, the IRS, the intelligence services, the Justice Department and the federal courts.

We both know this is true, but the difference between us is, you don't care if the law was broken or if national security was compromised as long as it generates some negative propaganda about the President. This attitude of yours is also part of the effect Obama has had on some Americans.

 

[theHawk]

March 20 is the deadline given to Donald Trump by members of both parties in the House Intelligence Committee. House lawmakers ask DOJ to offer wiretapping evidence by Monday
In this thread, conservatives are asked to predict what evidence, if any (microwaves, etc) they think Trump will submit.

He has until March 20th or else.....what?

 

[toomuchtime_]

March 20 is the deadline given to Donald Trump by members of both parties in the House Intelligence Committee. House lawmakers ask DOJ to offer wiretapping evidence by Monday
In this thread, conservatives are asked to predict what evidence, if any (microwaves, etc) they think Trump will submit.

He has until March 20th or else.....what?

lol The House can't give the President a deadline for anything. Testimony will begin on March 20.

 

[radical right]

Do you believe that if Osama BinLaden called up the boston marthon bombers, that we couldn't listen in.

We could if the things the bombers said on the intercept while their identities were still masked were worrisome enough for the FBI to go to a court and get a surveillance warrant, but not otherwise.

So the answer is we could not listen in, because an american citizen was likely part of the conversation. So anything they said to each other in that conversation ie pre-warrant would never be known by the FBI.

 

[radical right]

We both know that without a surveillance warrant on Flynn, no one could have legally known Flynn was the person on that intercept, and Sally Yates knew there was no surveillance warrant on Flynn,

Unless:
Aide - Comrade, who is calling for the Ambassador?
Flynn - Tell him it's Michael Flynn
Aide - Oh.. Mr Flynn, he is expecting your call. I will put your through.

 

[radical right]

March 20 is the deadline given to Donald Trump by members of both parties in the House Intelligence Committee. House lawmakers ask DOJ to offer wiretapping evidence by Monday
In this thread, conservatives are asked to predict what evidence, if any (microwaves, etc) they think Trump will submit.

He has until March 20th or else.....what?

Or else they release a report with the information they have up until then. So it will say there was ZERO evidence of Obama wiretaping Trumps phones in Trump Tower during or after the campaign.

 

[theHawk]

March 20 is the deadline given to Donald Trump by members of both parties in the House Intelligence Committee. House lawmakers ask DOJ to offer wiretapping evidence by Monday
In this thread, conservatives are asked to predict what evidence, if any (microwaves, etc) they think Trump will submit.

He has until March 20th or else.....what?

Or else they release a report with the information they have up until then. So it will say there was ZERO evidence of Obama wiretaping Trumps phones in Trump Tower during or after the campaign.

Oh so they will say The NY Times was lying and that Flynn's conversations were fabricated.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Do you believe that if Osama BinLaden called up the boston marthon bombers, that we couldn't listen in.

We could if the things the bombers said on the intercept while their identities were still masked were worrisome enough for the FBI to go to a court and get a surveillance warrant, but not otherwise.

So the answer is we could not listen in, because an american citizen was likely part of the conversation. So anything they said to each other in that conversation ie pre-warrant would never be known by the FBI.

No, if they said something before there was a warrant and before their identities were revealed that concerned the FBI, the FBI could ask a court for a surveillance warrant, and only after obtaining the warrant could the FBI unmask the Americans. So if the bombers had said on the intercept they were going to plant bombs at the Boston Marathon, for example, the FBI could have called a judge with this information and quickly gotten a surveillance warrant to unmask them, but if what they said was not particularly compelling, then the warrant would have been denied and their identities would have remained masked.

 

[radical right]

Oh so they will say The NY Times was lying and that Flynn's conversations were fabricated.

They will say the NYT's article said Trumps server, which wasn't in Trump Tower, was monitored under a FISA warrant. And Flynns conversation was caught as the result of his communicating with a foreign agent under FISA surveillance.

 

[radical right]

No, if they said something before there was a warrant and before their identities were revealed that concerned the FBI, the FBI could ask a court for a surveillance warrant, and only after obtaining the warrant could the FBI unmask the Americans. .

You know that the FBI investigates security clearances. So if the NSA tells the FBI they have an intercept involving an american with a security secretly talking to a foreign government, does the FBI need a warrant to to listen, or read a transcript of that conversation?