Something-gate: Trump claims Obama bugged Trump Tower.

[EnglishPete]

jesus christ if you read the italic paragraph this is clearly a response to the slate article.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html

A ha! That Slate article is the one referenced in the Heatstreet article whih talked about the first and second FISA wiretapping requests

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

[EnglishPete]

nobody actually believes this right

not even trump

you have to be Mark Levin stupid.

[EnglishPete]

nobody actually believes this right

not even trump

you have to be Mark Levin stupid.

No one counts you

[EnglishPete]

Jim Comey is trying to prove he isn't Trump's bitch:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He knows it's false as far as the FBI goes and this will get out eventually. If it was something that he thought could be kept hidden he would never have made this statement.

The reason why he wants the Justice Department to issue the statement, rather than issue the statement himself, is that he wants another party to vouch that 'he done nothing wrong'.

Its evident that the administration sought, and on the third try, got a court to give them permission to carry out this fishing expedition. It looks very much like they went through the legal channels to do so. That's what Comey wants the DoJ to confirm. The issue is that the spying continued even after no evidence of criminal activity was found. It was continued and then at the last minute the rules on information sharing were changed with the purpose of creating out of context leaks that can be spun in damaging ways by pro Dem media and used by the Dem party.

Comey wants to cover his arse from implication in the latter by getting the DoJ to say there was no wrongdoing in the former.

[EnglishPete]

The New York Times and the rest of the liberal media say there's no evidence the Trump campaign was wiretapped. Where on earth could he have got such an idea from?

[EnglishPete]

Are you actually dumb enough to not realise that this if this were true it'd be extremely damning for Comrade Trump

You don't find a presidential candidate being bugged by the President in the name of "national security" and the CIA a little familiar? You haven't heard this story before?

This is just another conspiracy theory with zero evidence, and it is not being backed by the intelligence community.

Well James Comey and James Clapper have assured us that no such bugging of Trump or his campaign or Trump Tower took place. What a relief to learn from them that all those breathless reports in the likes of New York Times and the Guardian about Trump associates being wiretapped as part of ongoing investigations into links with Russia were just fake news.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, that's a huge charge to make! Presumably if the intelligence community had good reason to believe this was going on they would have been duty bound to investigate it further. If this were the case then they should have gone to a FISA court and got permission to start wiretapping/bugging the campaign. It would have been incredibly remiss of them to fail to do this if they really believed that such a conspiracy was going on. So were they remiss at their jobs in this way or was it perhaps there was no good reason for them to think that such a conspiracy was going on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. You think that Comey and Clapper might be lying about there being no such wiretapping. Why would they do that? If they are lying in order to try to refute President Trump's accusation then who might they be covering up for with those lies? If they're not lying then that would imply that they thought that there was no such threat to US national security. So which do you think it is?

[EnglishPete]

Are you actually dumb enough to not realise that this if this were true it'd be extremely damning for Comrade Trump

You don't find a presidential candidate being bugged by the President in the name of "national security" and the CIA a little familiar? You haven't heard this story before?

This is just another conspiracy theory with zero evidence, and it is not being backed by the intelligence community.

Well James Comey and James Clapper have assured us that no such bugging of Trump or his campaign or Trump Tower took place. What a relief to learn from them that all those breathless reports in the likes of New York Times and the Guardian about Trump associates being wiretapped as part of ongoing investigations into links with Russia were just fake news.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, that's a huge charge to make! Presumably if the intelligence community had good reason to believe this was going on they would have been duty bound to investigate it further. If this were the case then they should have gone to a FISA court and got permission to start wiretapping/bugging the campaign. It would have been incredibly remiss of them to fail to do this if they really believed that such a conspiracy was going on. So were they remiss at their jobs in this way or was it perhaps there was no good reason for them to think that such a conspiracy was going on?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow. You think that Comey and Clapper might be lying about there being no such wiretapping. Why would they do that? If they are lying in order to try to refute President Trump's accusation then who might they be covering up for with those lies? If they're not lying then that would imply that they thought that there was no such threat to US national security. So which do you think it is?

This whole absurd narrative about Trump and the Russians getting together to 'hack the election' is based on what exactly? Various 'leaks' and stories about 'wiretapping' investigations of key Trump people who were being investigated by various security agencies? Well the likes of Comey and Clapper have just tried to persuade us that no such 'bugging' took place, and even in the original stories it said that these investigations found no evidence of criminality.

Then there's all those 'meetings' between Trump people and Russians. Those turned out to be nothingburgers all.

What what about the DNC hacking itself. Weren't Russian 'fingerprints' all over those



Oh dear. This bogus story seems to be falling apart quite quickly. I think we can forget about impeachment or 25A.

[EnglishPete]

You are 100% right, EnglishPete. The whole charade is folding quicker than Badger at a poker game.

So the counter theory is that the CIA used Umbrage to hack the DNC for Trump and pin it on the Russians? That theory is almost as insane as it being some 300 lb. kid in his mom's basement.

No. I'm pointing out the possibility that the CIA (or some other party with access to 'Umbrage') used Umbrage to hack the DNC in order to pin in on the Russians. The 'big revelations' of the DNC hacks were that the DNC tried to fix the Primary for Hillary and did so in sneaky ways. Frankly that is just confirmation of what many people would suspect about how politics works. I don't think it was a huge shock to many people and I don't imagine that many voters, beyond a small proportion of politics nerds are going to get that animated for that long about the internal management of the Dem primary.

In other words the DNC leaks made no significant difference to the election result, and the people doing them would have had no reasonable expectation that they would make a significant difference.  People were expecting Trump to lose anyway. Its a bit more plausible to suggest the leaks were intended as pretext to ramp up anti-Russian propaganda, a pretext that caused slight embarrassment but which was still ultimately harmless.

[EnglishPete]

You are 100% right, EnglishPete. The whole charade is folding quicker than Badger at a poker game.

So the counter theory is that the CIA used Umbrage to hack the DNC for Trump and pin it on the Russians? That theory is almost as insane as it being some 300 lb. kid in his mom's basement.

The fact that the same CIA that ten years ago fabricated WMDs in Iraq apparently is now infallible is a sign of insanity. Isn't the definition of that word doing the same thing over and over again? They don't have WWIII on their minds but they'll fight it to protect the old system, which is being rejected across the entire western world at the moment.

Exactly. It could be an opportunity to make some anti Russian propaganda whilst having a sideswipe at Trump as a bonus.

[EnglishPete]

You are 100% right, EnglishPete. The whole charade is folding quicker than Badger at a poker game.

So the counter theory is that the CIA used Umbrage to hack the DNC for Trump and pin it on the Russians? That theory is almost as insane as it being some 300 lb. kid in his mom's basement.

No. I'm pointing out the possibility that the CIA (or some other party with access to 'Umbrage') used Umbrage to hack the DNC in order to pin in on the Russians. The 'big revelations' of the DNC hacks were that the DNC tried to fix the Primary for Hillary and did so in sneaky ways. Frankly that is just confirmation of what many people would suspect about how politics works. I don't think it was a huge shock to many people and I don't imagine that many voters, beyond a small proportion of politics nerds are going to get that animated for that long about the internal management of the Dem primary.

In other words the DNC leaks made no significant difference to the election result, and the people doing them would have had no reasonable expectation that they would make a significant difference.  People were expecting Trump to lose anyway. Its a bit more plausible to suggest the leaks were intended as pretext to ramp up anti-Russian propaganda, a pretext that caused slight embarrassment but which was still ultimately harmless.

The DNC hacks first incensed the Bernie wing of the party to the point where every speech between Nelson Rockefeller Cow Palace 1964, then in October the Podesta emails damaged Clinton every day which blunted the impact of the Access Hollywood tape. The cumulative impact clearly flipped the election to Trump. The CIA clearly wanted Clinton. If they were behind it, they would have hacked the RNC, then president Clinton could have used it as a pretext to get the Russians. This alternate story where the CIA got Trump elected, only to go to war with him makes no sense.

The DNC leaks/hacks and the Podesta hacks made a very marginal difference. No one would have expected them to flip the campaign and there's no evidence that they did. It got some politics nerds excited but that's about it, there's no evidence it flipped more than a tiny number of votes.

What I think had a much bigger impact was the project Veritas video revelations about Democrats paying people to incite violence and blame it on Trump. That's a much more graphic presentation of Dem dirsty tricks than anything the various leaks/hacks revealed. That came out at about the same time as the Access Hollywood video and the women's accusations and it was that that the Trump campaign to undercut the Dems credibility and accuse them of dirty tricks.

[EnglishPete]

[EnglishPete]

Oh neat, a cartoon to prove your point. You've convinced me, and all it took was Scooby-dooby-doo!

The purpose of the post was not to convince you but to mock you

The whole 'Russia worked with Trump to interfere in the election' narrative is completely falling apart.

There was the breathless reports that US security agencies were so concerned about Trump links to Russia that they were survelling and wiretapping his campaign. After Trump made his accusations on Twitter at the weekend James Comey and James Clapper rushed out to say that there was no such spying and every liberal news outlet exclaimed there was no evidence for it. Well if there was no such spying that suggests that they weren't much concerned about it.

Then we have various reports of people meeting with the Russian ambassador, reports that invariably turn out to be complete nothing burgers.

Finally the one bit of evidence for 'Russian interference for Trump' narrative that actually seemed to have some evidence behind it, the so called 'fingerprints' of Russian hacking it turns out coyukd have easily been faked by the CIA (or possibly by agents of other governments with motives for doing this)

If people still believe this nonsense Russia and Trump worked together to hack the election propaganda narrative after all this evidence has fallen apart then they deserve mockery and I am mocking them.

[EnglishPete]

I don't know what's worse, the C.I.A hacking everything or the Trump supporters who think it vindicates Trump on Russia.

Seriously, anyone who thinks the C.I.A hacked and leaked info from the Clinton campaign and the DNC in order to frame Trump need to get their heads examined.

The primary target would have been Russia. Being able to get Trump as a secondary target was  bonus.

[EnglishPete]

Oh neat, a cartoon to prove your point. You've convinced me, and all it took was Scooby-dooby-doo!

The purpose of the post was not to convince you but to mock you

The whole 'Russia worked with Trump to interfere in the election' narrative is completely falling apart.

There was the breathless reports that US security agencies were so concerned about Trump links to Russia that they were survelling and wiretapping his campaign. After Trump made his accusations on Twitter at the weekend James Comey and James Clapper rushed out to say that there was no such spying and every liberal news outlet exclaimed there was no evidence for it. Well if there was no such spying that suggests that they weren't much concerned about it.

Then we have various reports of people meeting with the Russian ambassador, reports that invariably turn out to be complete nothing burgers.

Finally the one bit of evidence for 'Russian interference for Trump' narrative that actually seemed to have some evidence behind it, the so called 'fingerprints' of Russian hacking it turns out coyukd have easily been faked by the CIA (or possibly by agents of other governments with motives for doing this)

If people still believe this nonsense Russia and Trump worked together to hack the election propaganda narrative after all this evidence has fallen apart then they deserve mockery and I am mocking them.

Again are you high or stupid because the argument the CAiA sabatoged Hillary in order to sabatoge Trump is moronic an should be mocked

[EnglishPete]

I think Trump's inner circle is running scared. Carson, Wikileaks, now Pence backing up Carson, all since Trump launched Idiotgate with the tweets about wiretapps. They are desperate to drag the media and the public off the scent. I don't think Trump is smart enough for that, but his personal advisers are, and this reeks of Trump-camp flavored desperation.

And I can't see why, if there was truly nothing there, they could just sit back and let all their enemies waste the next three month screaming in public about non-existent Russian connections. Even Trump's tender ego should be able to take that. He could make weekly speeches that were equal mixes of pleasant sounding nonsense (like his not-SotU) and denouncing his enemies for the ridiculous lies.

I grow more convinced every day that, from the Big Cheeto on down, there really was some sort of back-channel deal with Russia. Maybe about the emails, maybe blackmail, maybe some old or new bribe, maybe even just a plan made in good faith but with terrible optics.  But there's no reason to lie, twist, cover, and do themselves so much damage otherwise. Even if they all are complete idiots.

This is the bottom line. Anyone who wants to conveniently overlook this behavior is blind.

Yep.

There's something fishy, but Trump supporters are ignoring it. But you know they would be the first ones screaming had Hillary won and all this stuff with Russia started coming out that they helped her win. They are the opposite of patriots.

Except nothing of the kind has come out. The one bit of evidence that points to anything is the Russian 'signature' on the hacks. However as has recently been shown such hacking 'signatures'can be mimicked by the CIA themselves (an indeed the US isn't the only country whose agents have the capacity to engage in this specific type of deception).

All the reports about CIA/FBI etc 'investigations' into Trump have said they came up with absolutely nothing.

Given the total lack of evidence for these claim I see the latest line from the Dem trolls is "But all these Trump people lied about contact with Russia" no they didn't

Flynn rather stupidly lied about this, probably because he couldn't be bothered to explain to all the hysterics screeching about Russia that this was a perfectly proper part of his job.

Sessions was asked the question about campaign contacts with Russia. He truthfully confirmed he had had no such contacts. He was not asked about meetings that were part of his job as Senator.

I see the latest one is Trump being criticised for failing to mention shaking hands with the ambassador at a reception, as though a handshake is a 'meeting' and he's supposed to remember every mfer he's had such 'meetings' with over the course of the year.

Don't the red avatar people here get embarrassed at endless hyping this nonsense?

[EnglishPete]

You know what none of these conspiracy theories have? Evidence.

You mean like the 'Trump conspired with Putin to steal the election' evidence free conspiracy theory?

[EnglishPete]

ke the 'Trump conspired with Putin to steal the election' evidence free conspiracy theory?

the russians themselves said they cooperated with the trump campaign to see trump win.

Citation needed

[EnglishPete]

Citation needed

didn't think it to be necessary since this is old news and everybody should know about it but anyway...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/world/europe/trump-campaign-russia.html

russians: we communicated  and cooperated all the time with the trump campaign.

Read the article more carefully next time. It says that the Russians said that they had multiple communications with the Trump campaign. It also says that it's normal for Presidential campaigns to have such contacts. In fact its the job of foreign embassies to establish such contacts with potential administrations. There's nothing in the article that suggests that such contacts went beyond a few routine phone calls and some handshakes and smalltalk at various receptions, which we already know about.

There's nothing in the article that says that such communication was happening 'all the time'. There's nothing there that claims or even implies that the Russians were 'co-operating' with the Trump campaign and certainly nothing that claims or implies that they were cooperating to help Trump win.

You're so desperate to believe this Trump/Russia conspiracy theory that you read into a story or a quote a whole bunch of things that just aren't there.

[EnglishPete]

once again.. trump's team lied about those contacts...make of it what you want.

No they didn't, I just quote what I wrote on the last page of this thread as you seem to have missed it

"Flynn rather stupidly lied about this, probably because he couldn't be bothered to explain to all the hysterics screeching about Russia that this was a perfectly proper part of his job.

Sessions was asked the question about campaign contacts with Russia. He truthfully confirmed he had had no such contacts. He was not asked about meetings that were part of his job as Senator.

I see the latest one is Trump being criticised for failing to mention shaking hands with the ambassador at a reception, as though a handshake is a 'meeting' and he's supposed to remember every mfer he's had such 'meetings' with over the course of the year.

Don't the red avatar people here get embarrassed at endless hyping this nonsense?"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you pay attention you'll notice that I'm giving exactly the same explanations as the Trump team. You just haven't wanted to hear those explanations.

[EnglishPete]

That our intelligence agencies are saying it happened is evidence in itself.

But anyway, I agree that an investigation is very much needed. If it turns out to be completely false, then awesome and we have nothing to worry about. But if it turns out to be true, as our intelligence agencies are saying, well then that's a huge deal.

Either way, the accusations are there, and they are being backed by reputable sources, meaning that an investigation into the matter is required. If you don't agree with that, then you don't actually care at all about national security or preserving the sanctity of our elections.

Well the DNC/Podesta hacks/leaks clearly happened. That merits investigation. The claim that the Russians did it has been made and that merits investigation, although the claim has been highly contested amongst experts, as mentioned in this article below

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/09/house-committee-russian-hacking-includes-only-dnc-hired-tech-experts/

But lets leave that matter to one side for the moment. Even if it was established that Russia was behind the hacks, which is far from being proven at all, that still wouldn't prove that Trump or his campaign had any connection to the hacks. To prove that it would need to be established that there were illegal communications and co-ordination between Russia and the Trump team. There has been zero evidence presented that has even suggested this is true. The intelligence agencies certainly haven't presented evidence for this claim. On the contrary people like Comey and Clapper have just spent the last week rushing out to say that no such evidence has been found.

[EnglishPete]

Breitbart isn't a legitimate source.

I'm sure they'll be devastated that you don't consider them a legitimate news source

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I've demonstrated rather well that you fervent faith in this Trump/Russia conspiracy theory isn't justified by the evidence without needing to try any harder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL. A foaming at the mouth Trump hater has declared he doesn't take me seriously, oh woe is me.

[EnglishPete]

I think Trump should experience some negative ramifications for his reprehensible behavior.

You just don't tweet WITHOUT EVIDENCE that the last President wiretapped your offices. How stupid is that?

He needs to start paying for his utter incompetence. Throw the book at him.

What should the negative ramifications of throwing about evidence free accusations and insinuations of Trump plotting with the Russians? Or should there only be negative ramifications when people draw conclusions based on some of those same articles that the Trump haters don't like?

Your comment reminds me of something I read in American Thinker this morning

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/best_guessing_trump.html

[EnglishPete]

Hey, remember when the White House called on congress to investigate this? Congress is calling their bluff today. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/intelligence-deadline-wiretaps/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So they're finally asking for the information about whether of not there was surveillance of the Trump campaign during the election and what that consisted of. It'll be interesting to hear what that was.

[EnglishPete]

The DOJ is asking for more time to turn that evidence over to congress. Hmmm...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/intelligence-deadline-wiretaps/

Possible surveillance of a Presidential campaign could potentially involve a number of different parties and agencies. I would imagine the DOJ want to be thorough in their response and to make sure that they've located all possible records relating to this matter before responding.

[EnglishPete]

The DOJ is asking for more time to turn that evidence over to congress. Hmmm...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/politics/intelligence-deadline-wiretaps/

Possible surveillance of a Presidential campaign could potentially involve a number of different parties and agencies. I would imagine the DOJ want to be thorough in their response and to make sure that they've located all possible records relating to this matter before responding.

So are you saying you're willing to accept the results if the DOJ admits that they have no such evidence?

If the DOJ say that there was no such surveillance of the Trump campaign then that will be very interesting. Various news reports have appeared in the media saying that the Trump campaign was suspected by various agencies of wrongdoing and was being subject to surveillance in an effort to substantiate these suspicions. It will be good if the DOJ is able to confirm that these reports were baseless and that there was no such suspicion on the part of government agencies.

On the other hand if there was any such surveillance it will be very interesting to learn when it happened, why exactly it happened, if anything was discovered and who authorised and ordered it.

Either way it will be very interesting to learn the facts after all these months of rumors.