The sources of Trump's wiretap claim are revealed today by the Washington Post

[Frankeneinstein]

We now know who is the source of Donald Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower. From the Washington Post:

Trump has since provided no proof to back up his assertion, which has been rebuffed by Obama, FBI Director James B. Comey and former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. On Monday, senior administration officials contorted themselves trying to defend the president’s claims, which seemed to emanate largely in response to a rant on conservative talk radio and in an article on Breitbart News, the conservative website that Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, formerly led.

White House aides struggle to defend Trump wiretap claims

We now know who is the source of Donald Trump's claim that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower. From the Washington Post:

Trump has since provided no proof to back up his assertion, which has been rebuffed by Obama, FBI Director James B. Comey and former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. On Monday, senior administration officials contorted themselves trying to defend the president’s claims, which seemed to emanate largely in response to a rant on conservative talk radio and in an article on Breitbart News, the conservative website that Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, formerly led.

White House aides struggle to defend Trump wiretap claims

The source of your post/claim is a left wing organization, so all else being equal...it proves nothing.

How much did your brainwash cost you?

COST? they're free under the ACA, don't tell me you shelled out money.

 

[oreo]

You hit it on the nail. We know that the Russian phone lines were wiretapped. Obama wanted this investigation done BEFORE he left office. And I am sure that it was done. In fact, it's reported by several that he PRESERVED intelligence on this because there is DAMMING EVIDENCE.
Obama administration reportedly raced to preserve intelligence on possible contact between Russians and Trump associates

Obama wasn't going to turn this over to FBI director James Comey, because he is also under investigation for his interference into the election. And he sure wouldn't give it to Republicans who would have squashed it.
DOJ to Investigate James Comey and the FBI

So in order to do this, Obama would have had to work around FBI director James Comey. IOW he was working with other intelligence, possibly someone within the DOJ or the CIA or one of the military intelligence agencies.

So this Senate investigation is really the 2nd investigation, for the show.

So Obama is sitting back patiently waiting, and every time one of them lies under oath, like Flynn and Sessions another leak pops up. He has cast a very broad net, and his intention is to insnarl all of them in it before he's done. I imagine when Democrats take over in 2018 then he'll release it all.

Trump & company have been wholly outfoxed by Barack Obama.

BUT THE POINT IS FOR TRUMP SUPPORTERS: You had better HOPE that Trump is LYING about this wiretap of the Trump tower, because then it's extremely serious. Because that actually does require a WARRANT issued by a Federal District Court Judge. The President cannot order it. Probable cause has to be shown to a District Court Judge for them to issue a wiretap on an American citizen.

And Lindsey Graham explains it for you.
Lindsey Graham: Obama Wiretap of Trump's Phones Would Be 'Biggest Political Scandal Since Watergate'

So while James Comey is saying nothing happened, it really doesn't mean that this investigation was even done by the FBI. You'll note that James Comey wanted the DOJ to publicly deny that the Trump Tower was wiretapped, and they have NOT done that, or even commented on it.
Comey asks Justice Department to deny Trump's wiretapping accusations - Breitbart

Well all of the leaks are going to be investigated and people will be wearing orange.

Leaks SHOULD be investigated. In FACT - that was also what the Obama administration was doing as well when they had problems with leaks, wasn't it?

What Obama has ordered is illegal.

What did he actually order and what proof do you have to support the claim?

Grassley is going to be investigating potential collusion between the FBI and the Clinton team and abuse of agencies by Obama.

And...?
They're also investigating Trump and the Trump team for potential collusion with Russia and the Russian hacks.
It's their job to investigate, and then move on if there is no evidence.

Oh happy day. You see when Senator Grassley and others found out the FBI actually considered buying the fake dossier they got royally pissed off and have given Comey two weeks to come up with answers.

I'm trying to figure out what is WRONG with that since it might be pertinant to their investigations on Russian activities and the Trump campaign. Can you explain what is illegal here? Add to that - has anyone confirmed it's "fake"?

BTW watch what happens over the next few days. Podesta and his brother.

Tony works for the largest Russian bank as a lobbyist. He made over $170,000 from Russia last year.

Sberbank's major shareholder is the Russian government. It's nickname is the KGB bank.

Essentially Tony Podesta has been working for the Russian government.

This isn't about Podesta.

The FBI should not had been investigating anyone since a crime was never committed. You can't just order the FBI to wiretap someone because you think they are up to something. Obama abused his power, he and his cronies at the FBI should had never been investigating Trump or his staff. Any such "investigation" would had been purely political, as the illegal leaks prove it was.

Has any evidence of wrongdoing by a Trump staff been found? Nope.

is lying considered a wrongdoing by republicans?

When people are continually lying, it's usually because they're trying to hide something.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We don't need proof of obvious truthhoods. Did we know the earth was round before the space exploration? Of course we did.

Because we already had proof before space exploration, prior to that it was believed to be flat.

Not everyone, supporters of Trump still believe his word is his bond and the earth is flat.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

We don't need proof of obvious truthhoods. Did we know the earth was round before the space exploration? Of course we did.

Because we already had proof before space exploration, prior to that it was believed to be flat.

Not everyone, supporters of Trump still believe his word is his bond and the earth is flat.

I've met some of them, no matter how much proof I showed them that hillary was going to win the election they just kept saying trump was, I even showed them all the media proof I could muster and they still insisted it wasn't true...dum-dums

 

[meaner gene]

When people are continually lying, it's usually because they're trying to hide something.

I didn't - did not have any communications with the russians - Jeff Sessions under oath reaponding to Al Franken, Jan 10, 2017.

 

[OKTexas]

I gave you a photo of the article, feel free to google it. I'm not your secretary.

So you haven't actually read it but still claim it says something that it doesn't?

And that would be what?

Proof of wiretapping at Trump Tower.

You understand a tap doesn't have to be physically at the location, right? Some bureaucrat can set up your phone to conference him in on any call and never leave his desk.

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you haven't actually read it but still claim it says something that it doesn't?

And that would be what?

Proof of wiretapping at Trump Tower.

You understand a tap doesn't have to be physically at the location, right? Some bureaucrat can set up your phone to conference him in on any call and never leave his desk.

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

 

[OKTexas]

And that would be what?

Proof of wiretapping at Trump Tower.

You understand a tap doesn't have to be physically at the location, right? Some bureaucrat can set up your phone to conference him in on any call and never leave his desk.

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Proof of wiretapping at Trump Tower.

You understand a tap doesn't have to be physically at the location, right? Some bureaucrat can set up your phone to conference him in on any call and never leave his desk.

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

 

[OKTexas]

You understand a tap doesn't have to be physically at the location, right? Some bureaucrat can set up your phone to conference him in on any call and never leave his desk.

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

The location of the originating call is meaningless when the receiving end is the target of monitoring.

 

[OKTexas]

Great assumption, now prove it.

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

The location of the originating call is meaningless when the receiving end is the target of monitoring.

And so far, you have yet to prove which end is being monitored. You are just assuming, just like you assumed collusion just because conversations took place. And you continue to push that narrative even though it has been debunked on multiple levels.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Show me some, fool.

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

The location of the originating call is meaningless when the receiving end is the target of monitoring.

And so far, you have yet to prove which end is being monitored. You are just assuming, just like you assumed collusion just because conversations took place. And you continue to push that narrative even though it has been debunked on multiple levels.

Are you daft? I'm not assuming anything.

THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS KNOWN FOR OVER A YEAR HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED!!!

 

[OKTexas]

You only need look in the mirror.

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

The location of the originating call is meaningless when the receiving end is the target of monitoring.

And so far, you have yet to prove which end is being monitored. You are just assuming, just like you assumed collusion just because conversations took place. And you continue to push that narrative even though it has been debunked on multiple levels.

Are you daft? I'm not assuming anything.

THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS KNOWN FOR OVER A YEAR HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED!!!

We know only what we've been told by mostly holdovers from the maobama regime. Excuse me if I don't take it at face value. But that still doesn't explain you regressives continuing to push the collusion tale after it has been debunked.

 

[radical right]

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

We know the NSA captures conversations to foreign nationals in this country, and everybody in the Russian embassy would surely be a target. If we didn't have a wiretap on everything going in and out of the russian embassy, i'd say somebody wasn't doing their job.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

The location of the originating call is meaningless when the receiving end is the target of monitoring.

And so far, you have yet to prove which end is being monitored. You are just assuming, just like you assumed collusion just because conversations took place. And you continue to push that narrative even though it has been debunked on multiple levels.

Are you daft? I'm not assuming anything.

THE ENTIRE WORLD HAS KNOWN FOR OVER A YEAR HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED!!!

We know only what we've been told by mostly holdovers from the maobama regime. Excuse me if I don't take it at face value. But that still doesn't explain you regressives continuing to push the collusion tale after it has been debunked.

The meetings happened. Trump and his people have not been honest about any of their dealings with Russian officials. That is all fact.

 

[radical right]

For proof of surveillance on Trump Tower?

Supposed transcripts of calls made form there.

Dial 911, and the police will have a recording of your phone call. Does that prove your phone is wiretapped?

 

[edthecynic]

And so far, you have yet to prove which end is being monitored.

Even your MessiahRushie today admitted the tap was on the Russian end, not on Tramp's end as the liar claimed in his tweet!!!

 

[radical right]

We know only what we've been told by mostly holdovers from the maobama regime. Excuse me if I don't take it at face value. But that still doesn't explain you regressives continuing to push the collusion tale after it has been debunked.

Occam's razor. Did the NSA wiretap the hundreds of phones in Trump tower, hoping to get the phone that Flynn would use, in hopes he would call somebody they could legally tap?

Or did the NSA have a tap on the russian embassy, and caught Flynn calling up their ambassador?

 

[OKTexas]

I do indeed. What we do know however, is that the Russian officials were indeed monitored and that calls with Trump officials were captured as a result. There is no evidence that any other communications from the Trump officials have been captured.

It's not real.

Great assumption, now prove it.

We know the NSA captures conversations to foreign nationals in this country, and everybody in the Russian embassy would surely be a target. If we didn't have a wiretap on everything going in and out of the russian embassy, i'd say somebody wasn't doing their job.

According to a guy on TV last night they capture everyone's conversation, including everything you do on the web. The question is why would additional FISA warrants be required if the conversations were picked up in normal surveillance?