BREAKING: CNN admit Paul Manafort was wiretapped

[iceberg]

2) why is their claim if "illegal" not relevant to you?

The question of legality does not apply to Democrats / Obama .. according to Obama, Democrats, and snowflakes.

not getting into that part. i'm simply not going to drift off to sideshow bob while he never answers questions around the references he chose to use.

 

[bodecea]

So CNN was lying all along. Trump was not lying when he stated that his campaign was wiretapped, and Trump was right when he called CNN "Fake news".

Stop lying. Trump said that Obama illegally wiretapped his tower, not FBI with warrant in hand which is the reality.

It was Obama's FBI. Are you saying Obama couldn't control his own government?

Are you crazy enough to think the president is personally involved in every FISA warrant issued?

Obama was involved in much more than that. Enough to put him away for life. And Hillary too.

Any day now, right?

 

[iceberg]

So CNN was lying all along. Trump was not lying when he stated that his campaign was wiretapped, and Trump was right when he called CNN "Fake news".

Stop lying. Trump said that Obama illegally wiretapped his tower, not FBI with warrant in hand which is the reality.

It was Obama's FBI. Are you saying Obama couldn't control his own government?

Are you crazy enough to think the president is personally involved in every FISA warrant issued?

Obama was involved in much more than that. Enough to put him away for life. And Hillary too.

Any day now, right?

wow - for a second i thought the question was "after all these months, when will we finally get some tangible evidence against "russia"?

 

[Peach]

The FBI interest in Manafort dates back at least to 2014, partly as an outgrowth of a US investigation of Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president whose pro-Russian regime was ousted amid street protests. Yanukovych's Party of Regions was accused of corruption, and Ukrainian authorities claimed he squirreled millions of dollars out of the country.
_______________________________________________
His 'activities' began LONNNNNGGGG before the election. He was working for another nation, Mother Russia:

“Federal investigators allegedly secretly wiretapped former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort before and after the 2016 election, according to a CNN report Monday. Manafort first came under surveillance after a secret court order authorized it for investigators who were looking into work he did on behalf of a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party, CNN reported.”

 

[easyt65]

wow - for a second i thought the question was "after all these months, when will we finally get some tangible evidence against "russia"?

Even the rabid liberal media has given up pushing that square block up the hill with their nose....

 

[iceberg]

wow - for a second i thought the question was "after all these months, when will we finally get some tangible evidence against "russia"?

Even the rabid liberal media has given up pushing that square block up the hill with their nose....

liberal ADD - about all i can call it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

that is pretty criminal

Not to Democrats.
Democrats commit crimes all of the time.
This is just another example of it.
The problem we're dealing with is greedy Republicans taking bribes from Democrats.

that they are and criminal supporters as well

it has been reported that hillary moved 800 grand from her failed campaign

to antifa and other hate groups

 

[easyt65]

The FBI interest in Manafort dates back at least to 2014, partly as an outgrowth of a US investigation of Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president whose pro-Russian regime was ousted amid street protests. Yanukovych's Party of Regions was accused of corruption, and Ukrainian authorities claimed he squirreled millions of dollars out of the country.
_______________________________________________
His 'activities' began LONNNNNGGGG before the election.

---------------------

This is the same Ukrainian govt that was colluding with Democrats to produce 'dirt' on Trump during the election...


That is one thing I don't understand - why would the Ukraine want to help Hillary when she did absolutely nothing and failed foreign policy while she was Sect of State helped lead to the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Perhaps pro-Russian Ukrainians were the ones helping the Democrats?

Was the annexation of Crimea while Barry refused to do anything to honor the US's promise to help defend the Ukraine's sovereign border what Barry meant by being more flexible after re-election?

 

[iceberg]

The FBI interest in Manafort dates back at least to 2014, partly as an outgrowth of a US investigation of Viktor Yanukovych, the former Ukrainian president whose pro-Russian regime was ousted amid street protests. Yanukovych's Party of Regions was accused of corruption, and Ukrainian authorities claimed he squirreled millions of dollars out of the country.
_______________________________________________
His 'activities' began LONNNNNGGGG before the election.

and just what did that next paragraph say in the story?

"The surveillance was ended at some point last year because of a lack of evidence, one source told CNN, but investigators obtained another warrant at some point during the presidential campaign."

so in your mind 2+ years of reviewing this man that turned up nothing of note suddenly is worth doing it all over again for the simple reason cited next:

Manafort attended the meeting along with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and a group of Russians with alleged ties to the Russian government.

he because he walked into a building with a russian with "alleged" (tell me, if you've been investigating this 2 years won't you know if the people he's with are gov agents or not?) ties to the gov we need to start all over again.

only if you can't give it up.

 

[Peach]

A group of Russians actually, why is the policy "hands off" Russia now? We know Kushner had big money in Russia, why not AMERICA FIRST? Both the son and future campaign manager have deep Russian ties, why not wire tap them? A Judge approved the taps, not the President.

 

[Faun]

It's a moment of political theater that could end in humiliation for Trump, with Comey expected to say that there was no wiretapping, debunking allegations that Trump has repeatedly refused to withdraw.

Trump claimed he was being wire-tapped...and now we find out that Barry was Wire-tapping his campaign manager before, during, and after the election.

You found out no such thing. You're a brain-dead con who doesn't understand English. Case in point -- nowhere in that article does it state that Manafort was wiretapped "during" the election. It says he was wiretapped before it and after it.

But being the illiterate rightard boob you are, that suddenly includes "during" the election too.

 

[Faun]

bullshit.

so far russia has turned up not a damn thing and the last hope is $100k on facebook.

i've spend about $1k on facebook advertising over the years, it's worthless. as for "fake stories" - it's the rage and all are doing it. to get mad at the other side is stupid and won't bring it to an end. facebook should screen shit more carefully because i also get tired of all the liberal crap they throw down.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

tell FISA it's legal. their job to know. so unless you can whip out better credentials than the people who are in charge of this shit, shit is *all* you got.

this "probable cause" thing you point to is also the fake dossier they put together to get it. which is also illegal and will get them in deeper shit. so unless you got something else, you're lookin the fool dancing for your boy.

how long ago did judge napalitano say this all happened? oh yea, you laughed then and now you're defensive. feel like you're going the wrong way?

Probable cause is required for both FISA and domestic surveilance. The fact that surveillance happened and has been used in the investigation is proof of it's legality. No prosecutor would build a case on questionable evidence. You'd do well to believe that not only was the surveillance justified and legal but it yeilded substance used to further the investigation.

You sure about that? Say, who ran the investigation back when the wire tapping happened? See if Russo was such an issue then the fact that Obama was listening to trump and produced nothings so far is mighty odd. You saying the Bammer guys were on to trump back then before Muller?

When was "Obama listening to Trump"?

If you can read that's your problem. Maybe if you payed more attention to the news and not the enemy's you would have a clue. Read the OPs article, then read the one I posted, do a search and find it. Sick of people trying to convert libtards and rabid political dogs.

You can't explain your position?
Where/when has,"Obama listening to Trump" ever been established?

You're assuming facts need to be established in rightard world. Nay, they need only be uttered by our most uneducated posters on the right.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Two words. Probable cause.

bullshit.

so far russia has turned up not a damn thing and the last hope is $100k on facebook.

i've spend about $1k on facebook advertising over the years, it's worthless. as for "fake stories" - it's the rage and all are doing it. to get mad at the other side is stupid and won't bring it to an end. facebook should screen shit more carefully because i also get tired of all the liberal crap they throw down.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

tell FISA it's legal. their job to know. so unless you can whip out better credentials than the people who are in charge of this shit, shit is *all* you got.

this "probable cause" thing you point to is also the fake dossier they put together to get it. which is also illegal and will get them in deeper shit. so unless you got something else, you're lookin the fool dancing for your boy.

how long ago did judge napalitano say this all happened? oh yea, you laughed then and now you're defensive. feel like you're going the wrong way?

Probable cause is required for both FISA and domestic surveilance. The fact that surveillance happened and has been used in the investigation is proof of it's legality. No prosecutor would build a case on questionable evidence. You'd do well to believe that not only was the surveillance justified and legal but it yeilded substance used to further the investigation.

the fact that FISA says what they did was illegal you seem to bypass and never directly address.

you tell me what the role of FISA is and why their saying this was illegal is not relevant and we'll go from there. the rest of your distraction shit i'm not playing.

Yes, they simultaneously approved and disapproved of the surveillance.

As an FYI, presidents don't order surveillance.

so you still won't address it.

it was approved due to a fake dossier they used to get the permission.

now - keep calling me crazy and refusing to simply do 2 things:

1) what is the role of FISA
2) why is their saying "illegal" not relevant?

nothing else i give a shit about because you won't answer core questions to this issue, just dance.

Your entire premise is flawed. I'd like you to explain your thinking so as to better understand. You can't simply dump,
"Obama listening to Trump" on the table and walk away while maintaining any credibility.
The dossier has not been ruled as entirely fake. In fact, quite a bit of it had been corroborated. I imagine it was those elements that were used to present probable cause if at all. It's apparent that you are "loopholing" in an effort to muddy and raise doubt but the fact remains that a man like Mueller does not build cases on a house of cards.

Surveillance on Manafort started well before the campaign. The question you should be asking is why Trump surrounded himself with so many shady operatives.

 

[bodecea]

take Crooked Obama to jail. lock him up!

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics

Remembering when that was crazy talk?



Trump's wiretapping accusation comes to a head at Comey hearing - CNNPolitics



(CNN)The bizarre saga of President Donald Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama last year reaches a dramatic climax Monday with FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

It's a moment of political theater that could end in humiliation for Trump, with Comey expected to say that there was no wiretapping, debunking allegations that Trump has repeatedly refused to withdraw.

LIbs just say shit.. THey don't mean nothing by it. Other than "HATE YOU".



That's why they don't care now that Trump was proven right. Because they didn't care then.


They pretended to care, because that gave them a format for their "HATE YOU", but that is all it meant.



And that needs to be kept in mind EVERY TIME THEY OPEN THEIR VILE MOUTHS.



They will say ANYTHING, and it doesn't mean shit. Not to them, thus it should not to anyone else.

So...this is really all about "libs" and not Manafort?

 

[Faun]

take Crooked Obama to jail. lock him up!

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics

Remembering when that was crazy talk?



Trump's wiretapping accusation comes to a head at Comey hearing - CNNPolitics



(CNN)The bizarre saga of President Donald Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama last year reaches a dramatic climax Monday with FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

It's a moment of political theater that could end in humiliation for Trump, with Comey expected to say that there was no wiretapping, debunking allegations that Trump has repeatedly refused to withdraw.

LIbs just say shit.. THey don't mean nothing by it. Other than "HATE YOU".



That's why they don't care now that Trump was proven right. Because they didn't care then.


They pretended to care, because that gave them a format for their "HATE YOU", but that is all it meant.



And that needs to be kept in mind EVERY TIME THEY OPEN THEIR VILE MOUTHS.



They will say ANYTHING, and it doesn't mean shit. Not to them, thus it should not to anyone else.

Trump wasn't proven right, you sycophant. He claimed his phones were tapped in Trump Towers. Nothing in that CNN article says that. Another news story broke recently when the Department of Justice publicly revealed they could not find any evidence that Trump Towers was wiretapped.

 

[Correll]

take Crooked Obama to jail. lock him up!

US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman - CNNPolitics

Remembering when that was crazy talk?



Trump's wiretapping accusation comes to a head at Comey hearing - CNNPolitics



(CNN)The bizarre saga of President Donald Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by President Barack Obama last year reaches a dramatic climax Monday with FBI Director James Comey's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

It's a moment of political theater that could end in humiliation for Trump, with Comey expected to say that there was no wiretapping, debunking allegations that Trump has repeatedly refused to withdraw.

LIbs just say shit.. THey don't mean nothing by it. Other than "HATE YOU".



That's why they don't care now that Trump was proven right. Because they didn't care then.


They pretended to care, because that gave them a format for their "HATE YOU", but that is all it meant.



And that needs to be kept in mind EVERY TIME THEY OPEN THEIR VILE MOUTHS.



They will say ANYTHING, and it doesn't mean shit. Not to them, thus it should not to anyone else.

So...this is really all about "libs" and not Manafort?

Crixus made a comment about how the wiretapping was considered "crazy talk".


My post was in response to that.


WHich you knew, but by playing dumb you got to make a negative spun post, without actually addressing anything I said.


Were you one of the libs that considered the accusation of wire tapping to be "crazy talk" and if so, would you like to apologize to Trump and all Trump supporters for shit you said then, now that you know you were wrong?

 

[iceberg]

bullshit.

so far russia has turned up not a damn thing and the last hope is $100k on facebook.

i've spend about $1k on facebook advertising over the years, it's worthless. as for "fake stories" - it's the rage and all are doing it. to get mad at the other side is stupid and won't bring it to an end. facebook should screen shit more carefully because i also get tired of all the liberal crap they throw down.

FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens | Zero Hedge

tell FISA it's legal. their job to know. so unless you can whip out better credentials than the people who are in charge of this shit, shit is *all* you got.

this "probable cause" thing you point to is also the fake dossier they put together to get it. which is also illegal and will get them in deeper shit. so unless you got something else, you're lookin the fool dancing for your boy.

how long ago did judge napalitano say this all happened? oh yea, you laughed then and now you're defensive. feel like you're going the wrong way?

Probable cause is required for both FISA and domestic surveilance. The fact that surveillance happened and has been used in the investigation is proof of it's legality. No prosecutor would build a case on questionable evidence. You'd do well to believe that not only was the surveillance justified and legal but it yeilded substance used to further the investigation.

the fact that FISA says what they did was illegal you seem to bypass and never directly address.

you tell me what the role of FISA is and why their saying this was illegal is not relevant and we'll go from there. the rest of your distraction shit i'm not playing.

Yes, they simultaneously approved and disapproved of the surveillance.

As an FYI, presidents don't order surveillance.

so you still won't address it.

it was approved due to a fake dossier they used to get the permission.

now - keep calling me crazy and refusing to simply do 2 things:

1) what is the role of FISA
2) why is their saying "illegal" not relevant?

nothing else i give a shit about because you won't answer core questions to this issue, just dance.

Your entire premise is flawed.

again - i'm not sure what part of "i'm not playing your sideshow bob bullshit distractions" your mind can't comprehend but if you can't understand a simple question, this complex shit is well beyond you.

this is not MY premise for you to gloat over.
this is not MY call to say it's illegal.
you are not arguing with *me* at this point but FISA.

FISA says this was illegal.

1) what is the role of FISA
2) what is their statement not relevant
3) my "premise" has zero issue on the above 2. either answer those 2 (finally) or just admit you don't know.

the rest of us know you don't know, but it would be refreshing for you to do 1 of 2 things at this point.

1) answer a direct question
2) admit you don't know.

you can war and peace my wall again but unless it answers the 2 questions you're taking the life from your keyboard w/o a good reason.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You can't explain your position?
Where/when has,"Obama listening to Trump" ever been established?

Obama and his administration's actions make the case.

Obama has a past history of continually violating the Constitution and Rule of law as well as he and his Cabinet members lying their assess off:

- Illegally spied on Americans, reporters, the media, the US Senate, and the USSC
- Illegally used the IRS as a weapon against citizens
- His 1st US AG became the 1st US AG / Presidential Cabinet member to be CENSURED for his perjury
- Clapper perjured himself about illegal spying on US citizens but was given a 2nd chance to tell the truth before Congress to avoid Perjury Charges
- IRS chief Koskinen was caught Perjuring himself before Congress but was also protected by Barry
- Brennan was caught perjuring himself - protected by Barry
- Comey perjured himself and may be brought before Congress to testify again
- Comey testified about lynch's (Obama's 2nd criminal US AGY Obstruction
- Obama has lied just about everything: the ACA, Not knowing about Hillary's server until learning about it in the news, 'the video', the IRS targeting, etc...

Why would Barry worry about FISA and legit warrants when he had already been illegally spying on Americans, the media, the US Senate, the USSC, etc? To check the boxes, maybe, but would certainly not let a little thing like the law or the Constitution stand in the way of what he wanted...as he repeatedly proved.

So many illegal activities have been exposed and so many lies and cover-ups that Obama and his administration has no more credibility, as more and more of his crimes keep getting exposed.

Well that settles It!
Of course easilyfooled65 just dumps armfulls of random shit on the table and calls it a clear case.

A president does not order surveillance. They find out after the fact. They don't even know the identity of the target without a formal request that it be unmasked.

 

[easyt65]

We know Kushner had big money in Russia

Hillary got a huge donation from THE Russian leading the effort to buy Uranium from the US...

Bill was working for the KGB during the election...

Hillary's campaign manager received thousands of unreported Russian Stocks and 1/3rd of his company's board of directors consisted of prominent Russian businessmen directly connected to the Kremlin and Putin

Her campaign manager's brother was working for the RUSSIAN SPY AGENCY that reportedly 'hacked' the DNC e-mail...

Why not wire-tap Hillary?
Why not wire-tab Bill?
Why not wire-tap HER campaign manager?
Why not wire-tap her campaign manager's brother?

Oh yeah, because none of them wanted to erase Barry's 'Legacy' from the record books.

 

[easyt65]

Probable cause is required for both FISA and domestic surveilance. The fact that surveillance happened and has been used in the investigation is proof of it's legality. No prosecutor would build a case on questionable evidence. You'd do well to believe that not only was the surveillance justified and legal but it yeilded substance used to further the investigation.

the fact that FISA says what they did was illegal you seem to bypass and never directly address.

you tell me what the role of FISA is and why their saying this was illegal is not relevant and we'll go from there. the rest of your distraction shit i'm not playing.

Yes, they simultaneously approved and disapproved of the surveillance.

As an FYI, presidents don't order surveillance.

so you still won't address it.

it was approved due to a fake dossier they used to get the permission.

now - keep calling me crazy and refusing to simply do 2 things:

1) what is the role of FISA
2) why is their saying "illegal" not relevant?

nothing else i give a shit about because you won't answer core questions to this issue, just dance.

Your entire premise is flawed.

again - i'm not sure what part of "i'm not playing your sideshow bob bullshit distractions" your mind can't comprehend but if you can't understand a simple question, this complex shit is well beyond you.

this is not MY premise for you to gloat over.
this is not MY call to say it's illegal.
you are not arguing with *me* at this point but FISA.

FISA says this was illegal.

1) what is the role of FISA
2) what is their statement not relevant
3) my "premise" has zero issue on the above 2. either answer those 2 (finally) or just admit you don't know.

the rest of us know you don't know, but it would be refreshing for you to do 1 of 2 things at this point.

1) answer a direct question
2) admit you don't know.

you can war and peace my wall again but unless it answers the 2 questions you're taking the life from your keyboard w/o a good reason.

Snowflakes avoid answering tough questions at all costs. The best you can hope for is