ObamaGate

Then is it safe to assume you are or would have been equally outraged over Bill and Hillary's exploits? Clinton Foundation and it's corrupt business dealings and ties to foreign donors/money. MSM favors one party's corruption over the other. It certainly does not seek the moral high ground of unbiased reporting.

You don't come over here as much as others, so I'll cut you some slack.

I've said at least two dozen times that Hillary should be in prison, especially with regards to her handling of state security.

That I still voted for her, despite nearly every fiber in my being, is a reflection upon Donny, who makes her and Bill look like George Washington and James Madison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Below are portions of several articles. I omitted most of the partisan fluff as able. I've been trying to get up to speed on this but several things stand out. I'm not convicting nor exonerating anyone, but I don't think we can categorically say any of the players involved are without guilt. We will have to wait to find out what the FISA investigation reveals and if they pursue Trump. Additionally, nothing I've read from multiple articles say Obama or certain members of his DOJ are in the clear on this either. We still don't know enough. And per usual, someone had to be the first to tell everything they know and revealed Trump's name in a FISA investigation which, as noted in one of the articles below, is a felony:


Prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

Under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so.

FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process. Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
What is "propaganda and a witch hunt"? Reporting the sh** that Trump tweets out exactly?

Considering we found out just a few years ago they are pretty much spying on everyone. It's no surprise that in their hunt for showergate evidence they wiretapped Trump. The NYT reported as much...using the famous unnamed official.

For the last 8 years Democrats have started **** (nuclear option, questioning credibility of elections, former president interfering, etc.) and then cried when it predictably went awry.
 
Below are portions of several articles. I omitted most of the partisan fluff as able. I've been trying to get up to speed on this but several things stand out. I'm not convicting nor exonerating anyone, but I don't think we can categorically say any of the players involved are without guilt. We will have to wait to find out what the FISA investigation reveals and if they pursue Trump. Additionally, nothing I've read from multiple articles say Obama or certain members of his DOJ are in the clear on this either. We still don't know enough. And per usual, someone had to be the first to tell everything they know and revealed Trump's name in a FISA investigation which, as noted in one of the articles below, is a felony:


Prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA allows the government, if it gets court permission, to conduct electronic surveillance (which could include wiretapping, monitoring of e-mail, and the like) against those it alleges are “agents of a foreign power.” FISA applications and the evidence garnered from them are classified – i.e., we would not know about any of this unless someone had leaked classified information to the media, a felony.

Under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff “ordered” surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so.

FISA national-security investigations are not like criminal investigations. They are more like covert intelligence operations – which presidents personally sign off on. The intention is not to build a criminal case; it is to gather information about what foreign powers are up, particularly on U.S. soil. One of the points in FISA proceedings’ being classified is that they remain secret – the idea is not to prejudice an American citizen with publication of the fact that he has been subjected to surveillance even though he is not alleged to have engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

To be clear, there does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that any surveillance or requests to conduct surveillance against then-candidate Donald Trump was done outside the FISA process. Nevertheless, whether done inside or outside the FISA process, it would be a scandal of Watergate dimension if a presidential administration sought to conduct, or did conduct, national-security surveillance against the presidential candidate of the opposition party. Unless there was some powerful evidence that the candidate was actually acting as an agent of a foreign power, such activity would amount to a pretextual use of national-security power for political purposes. That is the kind of abuse that led to Richard Nixon’s resignation in lieu of impeachment.

The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.


Yeah.

You removed the partisan fluff.

Yeah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Yeah.

You removed the partisan fluff.

Yeah.

Ok, Counselor...What is inaccurate since this is your wheelhouse? If I left something in that comes across as partisan, it was probably due to the content/context of the entire sentence. This is from multiple publications on either end of the political spectrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The Judge who signed off on the warrant was a Bush appointee.
The information that I have is that the three judge panel that signed off on the warrant consisted of:

1) William Curtis Bryson....nominated 6/22/94, confirmed 9/29/94.

2) Jose A. Cabranes....nominated 5/24/94, confirmed 8/09/94.

3) Richard C. Tallman.....nominated 10/20/99, confirmed 5/24/2000.

I'm thinking Bill Clinton was the President during that time. Combine that with Bill Clinton meeting Loretta Lynch on the airport runway, and the first failed attempt for the warrant coming on the heels of that meeting, then searching out another court, that these guys just happened to be on.......
 
Ok, Counselor...What is inaccurate since this is your wheelhouse? If I left something in that comes across as partisan, it was probably due to the content/context of the entire sentence. This is from multiple publications on either end of the political spectrum.



Well, the claim from Trump was that Obama ordered it. To his chagrin,people asked, "hey, what makes you say that?"

So now it changes to, well, he didn't order it, he asked for it. And our proof is that he didn't order it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
cf89185a3.jpg



About 1/10 California residents is on public assistance from the federal government.

Tell me how that compares with the majority of states that voted for Trump. Also kind of strange that the states that are less likely to have its residents on public assistance are the blue states. You know the ones full of non working liberals. Strange how that works.

That graph and the resulting conversation deserves its own thread. However, I'm guessing there will not be much conversation due to it not conforming to the preconceived biases held by most posters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
Do you all think that Hillary knew about the Trump surveillance before the election? On Oct. 31, 2016 at 5:36 p.m., she tweeted..... "Computer scientists apparently uncovered a covert server linking Trump Organization to a Russian based bank."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Well, the claim from Trump was that Obama ordered it. To his chagrin,people asked, "hey, what makes you say that?"

So now it changes to, well, he didn't order it, he asked for it. And our proof is that he didn't order it.


Correct. And what I posted makes that distinction in one of the articles.
 
It appears that Bjorn just likes to drop in occasionally prove that he doesn't know people as well as he thinks he does, drop a steaming pile, and saunter back out.

What was that you said about cross-thread vendettas? Oh, I found it.

And I really hate to mention it now, but cross-thread vendettas are kind of middle schoolish and betray a bit too much sensitivity.

Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
I think that at this point we should all just pray that some folks within the GOP will summon the courage to do what is right for the country and undertake to have Trump lawfully removed from office. He's losing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
I didn't even vote for the dude you liberal scrot sucking fool.

You literally only respond to people you disagree with via insult...and yet here you are freaking out about a response to one of your insults. You may not have voted for him, but I can hear you screeching "Very unfair!" across the internet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Do you all think that Hillary knew about the Trump surveillance before the election? On Oct. 31, 2016 at 5:36 p.m., she tweeted..... "Computer scientists apparently uncovered a covert server linking Trump Organization to a Russian based bank."

:question:
 
You literally only respond to people you disagree with via insult...and yet here you are freaking out about a response to one of your insults. You may not have voted for him, but I can hear you screeching "Very unfair!" across the internet.

I wasn't freaking out.....try reading it with a British accent and see if that tones it down a bit
 
Ok, Counselor...What is inaccurate since this is your wheelhouse? If I left something in that comes across as partisan, it was probably due to the content/context of the entire sentence. This is from multiple publications on either end of the political spectrum.

Don't stop them. They are in the middle of making themselves look foolish.
 
cf89185a3.jpg



About 1/10 California residents is on public assistance from the federal government.

Tell me how that compares with the majority of states that voted for Trump. Also kind of strange that the states that are less likely to have its residents on public assistance are the blue states. You know the ones full of non working liberals. Strange how that works.

This says different.

When Gov.*Jerry Brown*and the Legislature overhauled the state’s welfare program last month, some people learned a jarring fact for the first time: California has one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients.

Is California the welfare capital? - The San Diego Union-Tribune
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
If what I'm hearing/reading is correct...

Some of obamas people(even maybe himself) could end up in federal prison over this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

VN Store



Back
Top