Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
That's part of it. The other part is, regardless of the actual phone(s) being tapped, that details of conversations Trump and/or members of the administration had with people on those phones were leaked to the press for political purposes.He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.And remember Lynch's tarmac meeting with Bubba....the Clinton's have a hand in this as well.
Post a conversation from a Trump phone that Obama wiretapped.
You are a moron. The Liberal Media that you worship is replete with stories about wire-tapping of Trump's campaign.
So? The accusation is, LET'S BE CLEAR, that Obama tapped TRUMP's phones.
That's part of it. The other part is, regardless of the actual phone(s) being tapped, that details of conversations Trump and/or members of the administration had with people on those phones were leaked to the press for political purposes.He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.Post a conversation from a Trump phone that Obama wiretapped.
You are a moron. The Liberal Media that you worship is replete with stories about wire-tapping of Trump's campaign.
So? The accusation is, LET'S BE CLEAR, that Obama tapped TRUMP's phones.
That's a crime. The details of conversations of U.S. citizens that are gathered in a FISA search are supposed to be either destroyed or kept private. Instead, Obabble spread the raw data across 16 agencies (filled with his resistance goon squad).
Do you think we should be monitoring phone calls from Russia, China, Iran and other foreign nations?He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.
Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?That's part of it. The other part is, regardless of the actual phone(s) being tapped, that details of conversations Trump and/or members of the administration had with people on those phones were leaked to the press for political purposes.He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.Post a conversation from a Trump phone that Obama wiretapped.
You are a moron. The Liberal Media that you worship is replete with stories about wire-tapping of Trump's campaign.
So? The accusation is, LET'S BE CLEAR, that Obama tapped TRUMP's phones.
How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?
So you believe Clapper?Which is why you take what he says and check it out for yourself.Why would that matter?Is this the same Mark Levin who calls the Birthers fucking nuts? Including Trump...
It would matter if you're relying on the merits of Mark Levin's judgment.
I already know that there is no evidence showing Obama tapped Trump's phones.
He also said that there was no Collusion of Trump with Russians to impact the election.
Do you believe Clapper when he said that too?
So how did The Washington Post get a transcript of a phone call that occurred in Trump tower with General Flynn?
Funny thing is Flynn broke no laws, but the wire tappers did.
Please answer my questions.
Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?That's part of it. The other part is, regardless of the actual phone(s) being tapped, that details of conversations Trump and/or members of the administration had with people on those phones were leaked to the press for political purposes.He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.You are a moron. The Liberal Media that you worship is replete with stories about wire-tapping of Trump's campaign.
So? The accusation is, LET'S BE CLEAR, that Obama tapped TRUMP's phones.
How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?
Hey, here's an idea. Maybe Trump was getting blackmailed and decided to get out in front of it so if something comes out the finger automatically points straight at Obama. It's a MAD solution.
That ought to provide grist for the rumor mill for a while. I wonder how high it will go.
That's a possibility, but it's also possible that 1) It's the Russians blackmailing him and intelligence agencies know it or 2) Trump knows/thinks there are conversations with the Russians which could look bad for him (even if he wasn't party to the conversation) and he's executing a preemptive strike to soften the facts when they're revealed....Hey, here's an idea. Maybe Trump was getting blackmailed and decided to get out in front of it so if something comes out the finger automatically points straight at Obama. It's a MAD solution.
That ought to provide grist for the rumor mill for a while. I wonder how high it will go.
Do you think we should be monitoring phone calls from Russia, China, Iran and other foreign nations?He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.
1) If it was Obama who did that, then I'm surprised because one of the problems noted after 9/11 is the lack of interagency sharing of intelligence. President Bush's administration should have done this within months of the attack.Here's the problem. With Obama's order to allow 16 agencies to see RAW INTELLIGENCE DATA instead of summary findings, the spying data is so widely dispersed that it's going to take awhile to find out who leaked it.
2) Just because agencies share raw data doesn't mean everyone in those agencies have access to it. It's still controlled information and tracking access is highly controlled. I doubt it would take long to have a short list of suspects then put them through background checks, lie detector tests and legal interrogations.
Or evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians to hack the election. Sounds like a good reason to stop hyperventilating about it.Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?That's part of it. The other part is, regardless of the actual phone(s) being tapped, that details of conversations Trump and/or members of the administration had with people on those phones were leaked to the press for political purposes.He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.
So? The accusation is, LET'S BE CLEAR, that Obama tapped TRUMP's phones.
How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?
Hey, here's an idea. Maybe Trump was getting blackmailed and decided to get out in front of it so if something comes out the finger automatically points straight at Obama. It's a MAD solution.
That ought to provide grist for the rumor mill for a while. I wonder how high it will go.
No one's produced an illegally recorded conversation yet.
Correct. So what? If you have raw data on something, should you have your own scientists go over it, analyze it and publish the results or should you immediately disseminate it and allow sister agency scientists to review and analyze it at the same time you are doing it?There's a difference between sharing important reviewed and analyzed information vs. spewing raw data through the system.
Correct. So what? If you have raw data on something, should you have your own scientists go over it, analyze it and publish the results or should you immediately disseminate it and allow sister agency scientists to review and analyze it at the same time you are doing it?There's a difference between sharing important reviewed and analyzed information vs. spewing raw data through the system.
Disagreed; it is scientific data. Peer reviewed studies are the refined reports/analyses of data. Raw data isn't subject to peer review, it's just data awaiting analysis.This isn't scientific data for peer reviewed studies, bub.
Raw data contains private information regarding U.S. citizens who have FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Sending it around highly politicized bureaucracies facilitates turning such people into Political Targets. And that is exactly what happened.
Disagreed; it is scientific data. Peer reviewed studies are the refined reports/analyses of data. Raw data isn't subject to peer review, it's just data awaiting analysis.This isn't scientific data for peer reviewed studies, bub.
Raw data contains private information regarding U.S. citizens who have FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Sending it around highly politicized bureaucracies facilitates turning such people into Political Targets. And that is exactly what happened.
Do you agree we should be monitoring communications from foreign countries into the US?....or do you think ISIS has rights?
Thanks for the condescension. It gives me an insight into your stability on this subject.Here. Learn something:
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
And more specifically:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and ISIS have Fourth Amendment rights?Disagreed; it is scientific data. Peer reviewed studies are the refined reports/analyses of data. Raw data isn't subject to peer review, it's just data awaiting analysis.This isn't scientific data for peer reviewed studies, bub.
Raw data contains private information regarding U.S. citizens who have FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Sending it around highly politicized bureaucracies facilitates turning such people into Political Targets. And that is exactly what happened.
Do you agree we should be monitoring communications from foreign countries into the US?....or do you think ISIS has rights?
Here. Learn something:
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
And more specifically:
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Agreed. If true, then they should be prosecuted. I'm content to await the results of a full investigation.U.S. citizens and residents do. What the Obama Administration did was to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of such people by widely distributing raw data regarding their private communications.
It's clear you never took a civics class in whatever approximated your education.