Will Obamas wiretapping of Trumps home bring down the democrat party?

[Faun]

Yes, true. The Russian Ambassador was being wiretapped, not Flynn

That is illegal

Cite the law that makes it illegal to wire tap foreigners...

 

[Faun]

tinydancer, post: 16737003 I see you listened to Mark Levin last night. The articles in no way report a conspiracy theory that Obama was wiretapping trumps phone or spying on him.

Surveillance on Trump campaign officials certainly could have come from legal wire taps on watched foreign officials.

The articles did indeed report several instances of wiretapping, and FISA warrants on Trump Tower. So either they lied and it was leftie fake news, or Hussein Obama and James Crapper are hiding something.

Roudy, you miseed that those "articles in now way report a conspiracy theory" about Obama and wiretapping. Got to read it all.

The articles were hit pieces on Trump, and reported wiretaps and FISA warrants on Trump as a failed attempt to place his character into question. Obama had access to the info and shared it with the Hillary campaign, and two weeks before he left office, he passed a law to make sure his people on the inside would leak this info.

You are engaged in Alt Right fabrication (outright lying). You have no proof of any of that, and you don't understand Presidents don't pass laws.

You're just an ignorant alt lefter, not even aware of the corruption, betrayal and deceptiveness of the Democratic party. Why don't you look it up on your own. There's a reason Obama changed the rules in the last days of his presidency. This thing stinks of a conspiracy by Obama and his cronies, I sure hope they get to the bottom of it and put a few of them behind bars. :

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

So? Isn't that what you righties want? Weren't you the ones to bitch and moan it was a lack of cross-agency data sharing which allowed 9.11? You nutcases are never happy.

 

[Rambunctious]

So? Isn't that what you righties want? Weren't you the ones to bitch and moan it was a lack of cross-agency data sharing which allowed 9.11? You nutcases are never happy.

Wrong I'm still celebrating last November 8th. I'm the happiest man on earth.

 

[Faun]

So? Isn't that what you righties want? Weren't you the ones to bitch and moan it was a lack of cross-agency data sharing which allowed 9.11? You nutcases are never happy.

Wrong I'm still celebrating last November 8th. I'm the happiest man on earth.

Still waiting for you to cite the law that doesn't permit the government from wiretapping foreigners with a court order....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rambunctious, post: 1674500

That is illegal

How is that illegal.

It's not.

The Treatment of Flynn’s Phone Calls Complies with FISA Minimization Procedures
By David Kris
Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 5:02 PM

It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.


So legal so far:

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials (this passage is quoted in the chapter on minimization in my book on national security investigations and prosecutions):

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

Flynn was not the incumbent at the time of the call, but the logic still applies. In short, this is not a close call.


Still legal. Flynn becane a national security risk because of his high national security position and he lied in public about his conversation with a Russian official. And Russians knew it and could use it.

Had Flynn not lied, it's likely nothing would of came from the legal wiretap on Amb Kislyak
although talking about sanction as a private citizen presented some kind of legal predicament.

 

[Faun]

That is illegal

How is that illegal.

It's not.

The Treatment of Flynn’s Phone Calls Complies with FISA Minimization Procedures
By David Kris
Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 5:02 PM

It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.


So legal so far:

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials (this passage is quoted in the chapter on minimization in my book on national security investigations and prosecutions):

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

Flynn was not the incumbent at the time of the call, but the logic still applies. In short, this is not a close call.


Still legal. Flynn becane a national security risk because of his high national security position and he lied in public about his conversation with a Russian official. And Russians knew it and could use it.

Had Flynn not lied, it's likely nothing would of came from the legal wiretap on Amb Kislyak
although talking about sanction as a private citizen presented some kind of legal predicament.

Of course it's not illegal. That's why Rambunctious can't cite any U.S.
law stating that it is.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rambunctious, post: 16745054

Wrong I'm still celebrating last November 8th. I'm the happiest man on earth.

The worst situation for the long term future of US conservatism was Trump winning.

So you must not be a conservative.

 

[charwin95]

No one tapped Flynn's phone

Not true, the call between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador was intercepted. Who did it and why? Why was it done without telling Clapper? Was it done without permission? Obama's administration has some questions to answer.

What is so unbelieveable that we have taps on the russians? And anybody stupid enough to call the Russian embassy is going to be recorded by the NSA. So they should be careful what they say.

What is unbelievable and in fact treasonous is that Democrats and their cronies in govt. agencies have allowed the world to know that Americans are actively spying and wiretapping diplomats, leaders , and representatives of other countries, friend or foe. Of course, this is all because crooked Hillary lost. Had she won last November none of these discussions or preplanned leaks would have occured.

Yeah, the Russians had no clue we spy on them until now. <smh>

Oh yes...... They always knew that we spied on them and their diplomats and they do the same to us in Russia or wherever they have access. That is called espionage. This is nothing new.
What is new are the techniques and how we applied the technology.

But Flynn is a reject under Obama administration is so stupid he should know better that Russians are bugged.

 

[Contumacious]

Rambunctious, post: 1674500

That is illegal

How is that illegal.

It's not.

The Treatment of Flynn’s Phone Calls Complies with FISA Minimization Procedures
By David Kris
Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 5:02 PM

It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.


So legal so far:

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials (this passage is quoted in the chapter on minimization in my book on national security investigations and prosecutions):

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

Flynn was not the incumbent at the time of the call, but the logic still applies. In short, this is not a close call.


Still legal. Flynn becane a national security risk because of his high national security position and he lied in public about his conversation with a Russian official. And Russians knew it and could use it.

Had Flynn not lied, it's likely nothing would of came from the legal wiretap on Amb Kislyak
although talking about sanction as a private citizen presented some kind of legal predicament.

Excuse me dingleberry


1) In December 2016 we were not at war with Russia
2) In December 2016 Michael Flynn was a PRIVATE citizen
3) There was no reason to suspect Russia of wrong doing because through UMBRAGE the CIA can hack the DNC and blame Russia.


.

 

[charwin95]

[

You read it wrong. You're probably reciting the Mark Levin version of what the Times said.

I know you fascists seek to dominate the dialogue, but things are unraveling fast.

I suspect you are in far deeper trouble than you Fuhrer or his hate sites have led you to believe.

The GOP needs to just come to term with the reality that Trump's Russia problem will get worse.

You're mistaken, It's going to get worse for Obama and the Dims, not Trump.

Like what Bri?

Republican Senator Devin Nunes House Intelligence Committee Chairman cannot support Trump wiretapping fantasy.

 

[Roudy]

No one tapped Flynn's phone

Not true, the call between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador was intercepted. Who did it and why? Why was it done without telling Clapper? Was it done without permission? Obama's administration has some questions to answer.

What is so unbelieveable that we have taps on the russians? And anybody stupid enough to call the Russian embassy is going to be recorded by the NSA. So they should be careful what they say.

What is unbelievable and in fact treasonous is that Democrats and their cronies in govt. agencies have allowed the world to know that Americans are actively spying and wiretapping diplomats, leaders , and representatives of other countries, friend or foe. Of course, this is all because crooked Hillary lost. Had she won last November none of these discussions or preplanned leaks would have occured.

Yeah, the Russians had no clue we spy on them until now. <smh>

They had no clue the Democrats would take party over country by totally exposing our spying means and methods to the enemy.

 

[Roudy]

The articles did indeed report several instances of wiretapping, and FISA warrants on Trump Tower. So either they lied and it was leftie fake news, or Hussein Obama and James Crapper are hiding something.

Roudy, you miseed that those "articles in now way report a conspiracy theory" about Obama and wiretapping. Got to read it all.

The articles were hit pieces on Trump, and reported wiretaps and FISA warrants on Trump as a failed attempt to place his character into question. Obama had access to the info and shared it with the Hillary campaign, and two weeks before he left office, he passed a law to make sure his people on the inside would leak this info.

You are engaged in Alt Right fabrication (outright lying). You have no proof of any of that, and you don't understand Presidents don't pass laws.

You're just an ignorant alt lefter, not even aware of the corruption, betrayal and deceptiveness of the Democratic party. Why don't you look it up on your own. There's a reason Obama changed the rules in the last days of his presidency. This thing stinks of a conspiracy by Obama and his cronies, I sure hope they get to the bottom of it and put a few of them behind bars. :

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/...to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0

N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

So? Isn't that what you righties want? Weren't you the ones to bitch and moan it was a lack of cross-agency data sharing which allowed 9.11? You nutcases are never happy.

So suddenly, with two weeks left in his failed presidency which his adversary is taking over, Obama decides to change the rules with regards to intelligence sharing? You seriously can't be that stupid not to recognize that as a giveaway.

 

[radical right]

Yes, true. The Russian Ambassador was being wiretapped, not Flynn

That is illegal, it's not whose phone it is it's who is on the phone and for a sitting senator or General or any American to be secretly recorded on a personal call without cause is a crime.

It's perfectly legal for the NSA, CIA etc to gather intelligence on foreigners. That's what they were formed to do.

 

[radical right]

3) There was no reason to suspect Russia of wrong doing because through UMBRAGE the CIA can hack the DNC and blame Russia.


.

Are you sure you aren't a russian agent posting here comrade?

 

[radical right]

They had no clue the Democrats would take party over country by totally exposing our spying means and methods to the enemy.

News Alert !!! We got caught spying on our closest allies, which had nothing to do with national security. So why wouldn't we spy on the bad guys of the world? To protect ourselves from terrorist, political or economic attacks.

 

[bripat9643]

No one tapped Flynn's phone

Not true, the call between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador was intercepted. Who did it and why? Why was it done without telling Clapper? Was it done without permission? Obama's administration has some questions to answer.

Yes, true. The Russian Ambassador was being wiretapped, not Flynn.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

No one tapped Flynn's phone

Not true, the call between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador was intercepted. Who did it and why? Why was it done without telling Clapper? Was it done without permission? Obama's administration has some questions to answer.

What is so unbelieveable that we have taps on the russians? And anybody stupid enough to call the Russian embassy is going to be recorded by the NSA. So they should be careful what they say.

What is unbelievable and in fact treasonous is that Democrats and their cronies in govt. agencies have allowed the world to know that Americans are actively spying and wiretapping diplomats, leaders , and representatives of other countries, friend or foe. Of course, this is all because crooked Hillary lost. Had she won last November none of these discussions or preplanned leaks would have occured.

Yeah, the Russians had no clue we spy on them until now. <smh>

Yeah, just like you snowflakes had no clue that the Russians hacked out political parties.

What a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

[

You read it wrong. You're probably reciting the Mark Levin version of what the Times said.

I know you fascists seek to dominate the dialogue, but things are unraveling fast.

I suspect you are in far deeper trouble than you Fuhrer or his hate sites have led you to believe.

The GOP needs to just come to term with the reality that Trump's Russia problem will get worse.

You're mistaken, It's going to get worse for Obama and the Dims, not Trump.

Like what Bri?

Republican Senator Devin Nunes House Intelligence Committee Chairman cannot support Trump wiretapping fantasy.

How would he know? The NYT supports Trump's tweet about Obama's wiretaps.

 

[bripat9643]

That is illegal

How is that illegal.

It's not.

The Treatment of Flynn’s Phone Calls Complies with FISA Minimization Procedures
By David Kris
Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 5:02 PM

It is certainly true that U.S. intelligence services can get orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor foreign officials. The Russian ambassador, simply by virtue of his nationality and official position, is an “agent of a foreign power” under FISA and hence a valid target for wiretapping. It is publicly known and acknowledged that the U.S. government uses FISA to wiretap foreign embassies and consulates. So, the Journal may be right that Flynn was picked up on a wiretap of the Russian ambassador.


So legal so far:

But a U.S. person’s name can be used when it is necessary to understand the foreign intelligence information in the report, and no serious argument can be made that Flynn’s identity was not necessary to understand the intelligence significance of his call with Ambassador Kislyak. The call is foreign intelligence information mainly because it involves Flynn.

In a related context, here is what FISA’s legislative history says about minimization rules and substitution of generic identifiers for U.S. person names when those U.S. persons are U.S. government officials (this passage is quoted in the chapter on minimization in my book on national security investigations and prosecutions):

One example [of a situation in which a U.S. person’s name could be disseminated in an intelligence report] would be the identity of a person who is the incumbent of an office of the executive branch of the U.S. Government having significant responsibility for the conduct of U.S. defense or foreign policy, such as the Secretary of State or the State Department country desk officer. The identifiers of such persons would frequently satisfy the “necessary to understand” requirement, especially when such person is referred to in the communications of foreign officials.

Flynn was not the incumbent at the time of the call, but the logic still applies. In short, this is not a close call.


Still legal. Flynn becane a national security risk because of his high national security position and he lied in public about his conversation with a Russian official. And Russians knew it and could use it.

Had Flynn not lied, it's likely nothing would of came from the legal wiretap on Amb Kislyak
although talking about sanction as a private citizen presented some kind of legal predicament.

Of course it's not illegal. That's why Rambunctious can't cite any U.S.
law stating that it is.

It's called the 4th Amendment, moron.

 

[strollingbones]