The evidence Trump was wiretapped laid out clearly by Mark Levin

[Siete]

Levin is full of shit.

in the first tape his opening statement ... "two seperate sources say" ... which two fucktard ?

just like the rest of the Russian-Wingers ... any two will do.

NOTHING HERE, move right along.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

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.

How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

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.

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).

That's a charge composed out of thin air.

 

[Divine Wind]

He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.

Do you think we should be monitoring phone calls from Russia, China, Iran and other foreign nations?

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

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.

How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?

Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is this the same Mark Levin who calls the Birthers ******* nuts? Including Trump...

Why would that matter?

It would matter if you're relying on the merits of Mark Levin's judgment.

Which is why you take what he says and check it out for yourself.

I already know that there is no evidence showing Obama tapped Trump's phones.

So you believe Clapper?
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.

Show the transcript of the conversation between Trump and Flynn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a moron. The Liberal Media that you worship is replete with stories about wire-tapping of Trump's campaign.

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.

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.

How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?

Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

...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.

 

[Siete]

He's trying to play the angle that the tap was on the other end of the line and not on Trump's phone.

Do you think we should be monitoring phone calls from Russia, China, Iran and other foreign nations?

HELL YES !

ITS CALLED GATHERING INTELLIGENCE.

If some jack-leg pos like Flynn falls into the net its not the fault of the listening device ... he put himself there.

 

[NYcarbineer]

These charges against Obama are roughly comparable to him being accused of murder,

but without a body, a murder weapon, or a missing person.

 

[boedicca]

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.

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.

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.

There's a difference between sharing important reviewed and analyzed information vs. spewing raw data through the system.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama said Nuhn Uhn..

 

[hadit]

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.

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.

How are you leaping from conversations allegedly leaked to Obama illegally tapped Trump's phones?

Think logically. If conversations were illegally recorded but not leaked, how would we be talking about them?

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.

Or evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians to hack the election. Sounds like a good reason to stop hyperventilating about it.

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

 

[boedicca]

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?

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Do you agree we should be monitoring communications from foreign countries into the US?....or do you think ISIS has rights?

 

[boedicca]

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.

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Thanks for the condescension. It gives me an insight into your stability on this subject.

Do the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and ISIS have Fourth Amendment rights?

 

[boedicca]

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.

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.

Do the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and ISIS have Fourth Amendment rights?

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.

 

[Divine Wind]

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.

Agreed. If true, then they should be prosecuted. I'm content to await the results of a full investigation.

Your personal attacks are interesting. Why are you engaging in ad hominems over a simple conversation about national security and the Constitution?

Why have you evaded the question about the rights of Russians, Chinese, ISIS, etc? How do you tell the difference between a terrorist calling the US from Russia and a secret business deal between a Russian politician and an American politician without listening to them first?