Bigger than Watergate

Forums: Politics, Obama, Watergate, Liberalism Is Doomed, Bye Bye Left
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I have seen and heard much clamoring from the liberals both in America and from the surrounding wastelands about how there needs to be an investigation into the Trump-Russia thing, whatever it may be.

"Bigger than Watergate!" I've seen.

I am starting to believe that now. I've come around on this issue and I am now 100% in favor of a full investigation.

I firmly believe that this will finally put the Obama administration into a hole so deep and dark that we don't see another Democrat President for 20 or so years.

What?! Don't you mean Trump!?

Nope, clean the slobber up off your keyboard and go ahead and thumb this down now. That way you won't have to worry about your snow flake sensibilities being hurt.

A lot of stuff has been coming to light lately. Goes back to the "unmasking" of Flynn, the NSA director that had to resign (rightly so, shouldn't have lied.) and his Russian communications.

That started a lot of hub-bub about how that proved that Trump and his campaign colluded with them damn Ruskies to make Hillary not win! What it really did though was show that one leak can become a flood.

Once it was leaked that Flynn's communications had been tapped, the paper trail started. Why was Flynn's communications intercepted? How was his name unmasked? How did it get leaked? These are very damning crimes in a country that pretends to respect a person's privacy.

Turns out that the NSA, FBI and other 3 letter gangs kept pretty good records. Trump demanded to see that **** and being President, unlike Hillary Clinton, he was able to see the records. Naturally, being the President, he couldn't just come out and say so-and-so did such-and-such. Instead, he tweeted that Obama was tapping his wires at teh Trump hotel!

Oh the **** storm that raised. Liberals were hanging from the ceiling flinging **** as far they could see! How dare he! Obama would never tap anyone's wires! The only that were stopping to smell the **** being flung were other liberals though. The rest of were curious how Flynn's name got leaked. Especially if no one had anyone from the Trump campaign or Trump himself under surveillance. If there was no surveillance, where did the leaks come from? Someone was under surveillance and giving out American names, except under a direct threat to the nation, was so frowned upon they went so far as make a law against doing that.

If you watch CNN or read the New Yorker or New York Times, which is something the cheese eaters are want to do, then you'd suspect that the Trump name was mud. His days numbered, the national nightmare almost over... but no.

Someone gave Nunez some insider info... someone gave intelligence to the chairman of the House Intelligence committee and he spilled the beans. Another shitstorm! The howlers were everywhere flinging more **** everywhere they could see. Jumping up and down, thumping their chests, hanging from the news cables that broadcast their barking mad howls to the nation. yada yada yada Nunez was Satan spawned. Schiff went absolutely nuts! The Schiff really hit the fan until he went to see what Nunez saw and then, suddenly, nothing. Not a peep from him after seeing the intelligence. He suddenly became cooperative in the investigation... Go figure.

Ah, Farkas... I appreciate Farkas soooooo much. She goes on The Morning Joe show and outlines how people like her were moving product from the secret stash to the Hill before Trump became President and found out how his folks were being sped on. Can you believe that? Went right on TV and was so much in denial about how she had broken the law and that Trump was SO, so evil that she wouldn't possibly ever be held responsible. And seriously, who watches the Morning Joe show? His mom and wife? I'm even willing to bet that his wife has Fox and Friends on. So there was a slight chance that her talking about what had been done may not have actually been heard by anyone...

But, someone was getting paid to watch that **** and once they were able to get the toothpicks removed from their eyelids and untied, they were able to report on what she said. The next day or two, Farkas was made to look insane by saying the video was unknown and obviously the work of the Russians...

Jump to yesterday and noe Susan Rice "The Videotape killed the Ambassador" lady, oh, and I think she had some insignificant role in government like National Security Adviser. She has now, finally, fessed up to unmasking the names of people in the Trump admin in surveillance intelligence.

This is getting worse and worse for the former Obama administration. They have found nothing linking Trump and Russia, but the giant, blazing bonfire under the Democrats and former administration officials about using illegal surveillance, unmasking American officials, leaking information may actually be bigger than Watergate.

So, lets have a full, in depth investigation into this.

If you need links and evidence, go here.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 28,612 • Replies: 287

@McGentrix,

Very astute, Gent.

As you know, there has been some discussion of this whole sordid affair in another thread. For now, I'll just repost my latest contribution to that thread here:

Quote:

Susan Rice defiant amid growing calls for her to testify under oath

There were reports late Tuesday that Rice will be called to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about the ongoing probe. And in a letter to both the House and Senate Intelligence committees released Tuesday night, a group of lawmakers...demanded that Rice be called to testify, suggesting the matter is worthy of an immediate Congressional investigation.

In the letter, Reps Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Chris Collins, R-New York, and Lou Barletta, R-Penn, suggest Rice's behavior "appears negligent at best and criminal at worst."

When asked on Tuesday if she would testify, Rice said she wanted to see what happened but didn't want to "pre-judge."

Heh, doesn't exactly sound unequivocally forthright, now, does it?

"Rice said she wanted to see what happened" <---- Translation: "Hell, no, not unless they're willing to grant me immunity from prosecution!"

I guess she has learned through repeated experience that she can't glibly lie and expect not to be caught in her lies. Lying under oath is a crime (perjury), so.....

1 Reply

@layman,

A bombshell report released earlier Monday raised serious questions over Rice’s role in the surveillance of the Trump camp, and whether she ordered the identification of those Americans to be released for political purposes.

The report comes less than two weeks after Rice flat-out denied any knowledge of 'unmasking' Trump officials or why that information was delivered throughout the intel community.

1 Reply

It remains to be seen who will go down in flames here. I don't know what the **** a snowflake is in this context. I guess it's code for something against liberals. Liberalism cannot die. But much of it continues to be smothered by the Dinosaur Democrats who want to continue on the path set by the Clintons and Obama. Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren are a force you must not misunderestimate.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

Exactly. Caught in her lies, yet again, eh? Good thing she wasn't under oath at the time.

The very fact that she lies through her teeth, claiming to know nothing, indicates that she is not the least bit convinced that what she did was legal.

1 Reply

@layman,

The have been multiple reports, from multiple sources, that the Obama administration sought a secret FISA warrant to spy on Trump, by name, in July, 2016.

It was denied, which apparently only happens about 1 time out of 3,000 with the FISA courts.

Tough break, eh? But, hell, there's more than one way to skin a cat. You can get around the lack of a warrant very easily, if you want, and if you control the entire executive branch of government, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and 16 various spy agencies included.

2 Replies

@layman,

There has to be some DoJ people involved in this as well.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Once it was leaked that Flynn's...
Why was Flynn's communications intercepted?

How...?

How...?

These are very damning crimes in a country that pretends to respect a person's primary.

Why? Because someone...maybe even a Trump staffer😵 found it necessary to expose the truth about Flynn.

How? How? There are ways and it isn't yet proved that anybody on the
Democrat side, was responsible. We will have to bide our time until all obtainable facts are revealed.

To your last point about a country respecting the privacy of people, you'd better take a look at Trump, who, wants to end Internet privacy as much as possible and wants to examine cell phones from all visitors to the U.S.A. as well as have access to their Facebook accounts (including passwords). If he gets that, he'll likely then push for access to Instagram, Twitter and other social media for all visitors and then for all residents of the United States, including those with lineage on both sides of their family tracing back to the Mayflower days.

And how are you going to feel if after an investigation which you claim to be 100% in support of, finds that Trump and his Trumpeteers are the guilty party?

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

American privacy has been under threat since the terrorists won on 9/11.

I think Rice admitted today that she was responsible for unmasking Flynn and all of the Trump campaign people. That was disseminated throughout the Obama people starting Julyish last year. You know, right after Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination. At lleast the wire taps anyways.

So many bad things done by so many bad people.

Now, to answer your last question there, if it comes out that Trump and Putin were sharing a bed and were secretly planning to take over the world I will be right at the front of the line complaining about it.

I really am behind the investigation, I just wonder how it will happen. Neither side will believe the other.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

There has to be some DoJ people involved in this as well.

Right, Gent (or at least it's quite possible). Intercepted information about an american citizen's communications cannot even be "retained" for more than 72 hours without a court order.

There is one exception, however. The Attorney General (Lynch) can "determine that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person," and, if so, no court order is needed to retain the information (which still doesn't authorize disclosure).

I can see it now: Lynch saying that Trump is a threat to blow up the whole world with nukes, so therefore a threat of death is involved.

Quote:

50 U.S. Code § 1801

no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

Notice that it says "or" retained. It also prohibits disclosure, dissemination, and/or "use for any purpose" without a court order.

1 Reply

@layman,

Apparently the computer logs reveal that Rice asked for unmasking on dozens of occasions.

I'm sure the records will show whether dozens of court orders were issued authorizing the "use, disclosure, or dissemination" of that info, eh?

Good luck with that, Susie.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote layman:

Quote:

The have been multiple reports, from multiple sources, that the Obama administration sought a secret FISA warrant to spy on Trump, by name, in July, 2016.

Sorry, The Blaze and a post by BarbedWireGuts on Free Republic don't count as "multiple sources".

1 Reply

What if I read it on breitbart AND on breitbart uk?

That counts, right?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Sorry, The Blaze and a post by BarbedWireGuts on Free Republic don't count as "multiple sources".

Hahahaha. How about those lefty favorites, the BBC and The Guardian, eh? Do they count as "sources?"

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Quote:

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

1 Reply

@layman,

That's not what you said. You said,

Quote:

The have been multiple reports, from multiple sources, that the Obama administration sought a secret FISA warrant to spy on Trump, by name, in July, 2016.

To spy on someone means put surveillance on them and see what they are up to. Here, the FBI and NSA received reports that suspicious dealings were going on with the Trump team and some Russian banks, one of which is run by a trained KGB agent.

From the BBC, your source:

Quote:

Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

That's not spying on Trump by name, as you charged. That is receiving important information of shady dealings between the Trump team and Russian banks. As it turns out, after that warrant was issued and Trump was in the White Hose, Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, early thirties, (whose only work experience is inheriting his father's hedge fund business), did meet personally with the KGB agent who runs a Russian bank. And Wilbur Ross, whom Trump appointed as Secretary of Commerce, was one of the people who ran a Cyprus bank which was used as a money laundering operation by the Kremlin. All this happened after June of 2016.

The warrant was not asked to spy on Trump and see what he's up to, it was to justifiably investigate dealings between the Trump camp and Russian banks which are fronts for Russian intelligence. Clearly, those warrants were well justified.

2 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks. That's not spying on Trump by name, as you charged.

Yes, they did want that, but that's not ALL they wanted. BBC just chose not to fully disclose the nature of the warrant sought. Again, half the time it's not what IS reported, but what is NOT reported, that betrays the most obvious bias.

The Guardian was a little more forthright, saying warrants were sought against "four members of the Trump team," but, here again, they don't disclose that one of those "members" was Trump himself. I notice that you ignored the Guardian's claim altogether, and then acted like the BBC's omission proved the non-existence of what it refused to disclose.

Now it's true that more impartial sites, not devoted to hating trump and granting Obama sainthood, were willing to disclose the full details. Of course, for a cheese-eater, that just proves they're "liars," eh?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

You also skip over this revelation, from BBC itself, without making even the slightest inquiry into the underlying facts, eh?

Quote:

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

Why would a judge insist that a more "narrowly drawn" warrant would be necessary if the ONLY thing the warrant sought was bank surveillance? Hmmmm? Why would a second, more narrowly drawn, application ALSO be rejected (an extremely rare occurence with FISA)? Hmmm?

Maybe Obama was obviously over-reaching--that ever occur to you? The answer is given at other sites. The judge refused to rubber stamp a warrant specifically seeking to tap Trump's phone lines the first time. Even after they removed Trump's name from their request, they still showed no probable cause for what they wanted to do.

You can bet that Obama and his henchmen were quite familiar with which judges were most likely to do their bidding and **** with Trump, and that they brought their warrant request to one of them. Even HE felt he had to reject it.

0 Replies

Even the Trump-hating, Obama-loving BBC has to concede that Susie may be in a shitload of trouble, eh?

Quote:

Former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice says that while she did request the "unmasking" of some Americans in contact with foreign subjects under government surveillance, she did not do so for "political purposes." She did not say whether she had viewed intelligence reports involving Mr Trump and his aides, citing classified information.

If that's where the story ends, then she was almost certainly legally exercising the broad powers high-level US national security officials have to review reports produced by the intelligence community.

If, on the other hand, Ms Rice widely disseminated information about US citizens or leaked it to the press, as some Republican critics allege and she adamantly denies, then the picture grows much darker.

The bottom line is that someone, somewhere did reveal details about conversations Michael Flynn, Ms Rice's successor as national security adviser, had with Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. That leak, while it revealed that Flynn was being less than truthful with the US public, was illegal.

Rice says this has nothing to do with her. Republican investigators in Congress certainly are unlikely to let the matter end there, however. Ms Rice has come under intense scrutiny over suggestions she requested the intelligence community to provide the names of Trump administration officials who turned up in surveillance transcripts of foreign subjects.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39496941

Only a very high level official can request unmasking (with or without good reason). "Somehow" the unmasked identity reached the MSM. If Rice didn't do it, then some other Obama flunky did. The records will show just who (all) requested that the names be unmasked. That will narrow it down. Chances are it was only Rice, but we'll see.

0 Replies

Quote:

9,400 to Zero: For 6 Years, Spy Court Denied No Electronic Surveillance Applications

(CNSNews.com) - In the last six years on record (2010-2015), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court did not deny a single application out of the 9,400 the government submitted seeking authority “to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes” under the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to reports filed by the U.S. Justice Department.

The last time the court denied an electronic surveillance application under FISA was 2009. That year, the court denied one application outright and denied another in part.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/last-6-years-record-fisa-court-denied-0-9400-electronic-surveillance

Notice that this data stops as of 2015. Earlier I said only one out of 3000 warrant requests were denied. I was wrong. 9,400 approved, 0 denied. If, as has been reported, 2 were denied in connection with the Trump investigation in 2016, something must have extraordinarily suspect about them, eh?

0 Replies

Bigger than Watergate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know