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.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

---

Quote:

---

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Obama can't order a tap btw.

---

Quote:

---

I know what you're saying - Obama winks and things get done, right? Sorry, I doubt judges would risk their careers over that. As the Wired article says: "that would be a huge scandal." Trump needs to put up or shut up, and if it were found out to be true I wouldn't defend Obama for a second.- GSTRING

---

Quote:

---

So what happened?

.... The interesting thing is that this isn’t a new development. In fact, several outlets including Mother Jones, The Guardian, The National Review, and Heat Street

---

Quote:

---

have been reporting on this alleged activity over the last couple of months.

Here is the best summary we could find of the Obama administration’s efforts to wiretap Trump associates. From a January 11, 2017 Guardian article:

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. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation

---

Quote:

---

“Well, putting aside there is no indication Trump himself was the target of the FISA warrant (it appears to have been aimed at four of his associates), yes, it CAN be legally done,” Bradley Moss, an attorney and national security expert explained to LawNewz.com.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So, is Trump nuts???

---

He's acting like a guilty man. He's paranoid for a reason.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/feds-wiretap-trump-tower-not-obama-worry/

Obama can't order a tap btw.
“If he has evidence that he was wiretapped without a proper FISA order being sought, that would be a huge scandal, and he should produce whatever evidence he’s got,” says Sanchez. “It’s a pretty serious claim, and it’s striking he would make it without anything solid to back it up.”
The Justice Department sought a FISA warrant in June to intercept communications from two Russian banks suspected of facilitating donations to the Trump campaign. The judge reportedly rejected the warrant, as well as a narrower version sought in July. A new judge granted the order in mid-October, according to the BBC."
“While the order would have been requested by some part of the executive branch, Obama can’t order anything. Nor can Trump,” says former NSA lawyer April Doss, who stresses that her comments are based only on public information. “The order has to come from the court, and the court operates independently.”

Trump is probably just a little nuts and a lot guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Obama can't order a tap btw.

---

I don't think the claim holds any water, but let's stop being cute about "Obama can't order it". Sure, he couldn't on paper. Don't pretend you're so naive to believe that he couldn't get it done if he wanted to just because he's your guy. Trump technically couldn't either, but I'm sure he could too.

---

I know what you're saying - Obama winks and things get done, right? Sorry, I doubt judges would risk their careers over that. As the Wired article says: "that would be a huge scandal." Trump needs to put up or shut up, and if it were found out to be true I wouldn't defend Obama for a second. Truth Jack, not sides, not boxes - forget those constraints, they just hold your brain down. If you ever want us to get out of this Dem v. Rep sh*t pile we need more of that.

Funny, Trump can't get his first executive order to stick, so no, I don't think Trump could get that done.

---

Quote:

---

What SIG doesn't realize, is her link to the BBC lays out a clear case as to why there would be a need to tap Trumps phones. This is more self inflected wounds with SIG picking at the scabs. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

“The problem with the President’s question is that the standards for FISA are so low and easily satisfied (with little judicial review) that it is difficult to establish any illegality under the law,” wrote George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley.

---

Quote:

---

Here's how many US surveillance requests were rejected in 2015
The FISA Court has only rejected 12 requests in more than three decades.

Since 1979 through to 2015, the last round of reporting figures, the court has approved 38,365 warrants but only rejected a dozen. That's a rejection rate of 0.031 percent.

---

Quote:

---

He's acting like a guilty man. He's paranoid for a reason.

---

Quote:

---

Hrmmm...Substantial

---

Quote:

---

financial ties

---

Quote:

---

with Russia that compromise his ability to be an effective president that ultimately cost him his job maybe? It's just a guess.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm posting the Breitbart version in full because it is supposedly THE source of Trump's tweet, however, what was published here was also sourced elsewhere, including in the BBC.

Here is the BBC on the surveillance

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.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

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


So, is Trump nuts???

No, I don't think so. I think this is full-scale war between the CIA/ deep state and the Trump Administration. Last time this happened, that President wound up dead. I know our gentle friends from outside the USA can't imagine that this could possibly be going on, but yanno... when a world empire is at stake oligarchs will order some crazy shit be done.

The BREITBART VERSION

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

What SIG doesn't realize, is her link to the BBC lays out a clear case as to why there would be a need to tap Trumps phones. This is more self inflected wounds with SIG picking at the scabs. - THUGR

---

THUGR, if you had read the article for comprehension, instead of for talking points, or if you had been following the actions of FISA court on your own, you would have realized that the FIAS Court almost never turns down a request for surveillance. As the article said

Quote:

---

“The problem with the President’s question is that the standards for FISA are so low and easily satisfied (with little judicial review) that it is difficult to establish any illegality under the law,” wrote George Washington Law Professor Jonathan Turley.

---

As of 2015,

Quote:

---

Here's how many US surveillance requests were rejected in 2015
The FISA Court has only rejected 12 requests in more than three decades.

Since 1979 through to 2015, the last round of reporting figures, the court has approved 38,365 warrants but only rejected a dozen. That's a rejection rate of 0.031 percent.

---

http://www.zdnet.com/article/us-spy-court-didnt-reject-a-single-secret
-government-demand-for-data/
That the first two requests for surveillance were REJECTED shows just how weak the case was to being with, and it was reoslved in the usual way by the requesting authorities: judge-shopping.

Quote:

---

He's acting like a guilty man. He's paranoid for a reason.

---

Gee, why would that be???



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm posting the Breitbart version in full because it is supposedly THE source of Trump's tweet, however, what was published here was also sourced elsewhere, including in the BBC.

Here is the BBC on the surveillance

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.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

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


So, is Trump nuts???

No, I don't think so. I think this is full-scale war between the CIA/ deep state and the Trump Administration. Last time this happened, that President wound up dead. I know our gentle friends from outside the USA can't imagine that this could possibly be going on, but yanno... when a world empire is at stake oligarchs will order some crazy shit be done.

The BREITBART VERSION

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

---

---

Maybe true? Don't tell thuggery, his head might explode - he's more better smarter than us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
the person who would have to ok the wire tap name needed is on the record link needed

---

Quote:

---

Really though, the person who would have to ok the wire tap is on the record as saying it didn't happen. This is a man who served this country for the past 50 years.

Let me do the math. Fifty years of service, vs Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

There's only one guy for that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
the person who would have to ok the wire tap name needed is on the record link needed

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump along with his credibility is really up shits creek now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm posting the Breitbart version in full because it is supposedly THE source of Trump's tweet, however, what was published here was also sourced elsewhere, including in the BBC.

Here is the BBC on the surveillance

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.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

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


So, is Trump nuts???

No, I don't think so. I think this is full-scale war between the CIA/ deep state and the Trump Administration. Last time this happened, that President wound up dead. I know our gentle friends from outside the USA can't imagine that this could possibly be going on, but yanno... when a world empire is at stake oligarchs will order some crazy shit be done.

The BREITBART VERSION

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

---

---

Maybe true? Don't tell thuggery, his head might explode - he's more better smarter than us.

---

Really though, the person who would have to ok the wire tap is on the record as saying it didn't happen. This is a man who served this country for the past 50 years.

Let me do the math. Fifty years of service, vs Trump.


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

---

Quote:

---

"there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign" [said James Clapper]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
You act like ignorance of US and world events is some how cool.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

"there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign" [said James Clapper]

---

... "Except we DID wiretap Trump tower communication servers to target "Russian" agents, and if we managed to capture Trump or his aides ... well, that was a bonus" he added, under his breath.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
You act like ignorance of US and world events is some how cool.

---

No... Just not paying attention to fake news is all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
You act like ignorance of US and world events is some how cool.

---

No... Just not paying attention to fake news is all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

What you don't know can't hurt you Jack, and in your case ignorance is bliss. To bad that means you are going through life with blinders on, and therefore clueless.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
You act like ignorance of US and world events is some how cool.

---

No... Just not paying attention to fake news is all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

What you don't know can't hurt you Jack, and in your case ignorance is bliss. To bad that means you are going through life with blinders on, and therefore clueless.

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

---

At the end of the day T, tell me how knowing about anything we discuss in here improves our lives one single tiny bit.

There is merit behind the term Ignorance is Bliss, which is why it's withstood the test of time.

Nothing you or I think or do or say is going to change a thing. The machine will keep churning. We are powerless to do anything about it. Some of us choose to pretend to do something about it, and others put their heads in the sand. It's been my experience that the people who choose the latter are much happier and more fun to be around in general.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ignorant is as ignorant does. You say if there is one thing you know it's money. Why, it's important to make good decisions when dealing with your money, that's why. Do you understand? Ignorance means bad decisions. Bad decisions mean bad consequences or results.= Trump

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6STRINGJOKER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Ignorant is as ignorant does. You say if there is one thing you know it's money. Why, it's important to make good decisions when dealing with your money, that's why. Do you understand? Ignorance means bad decisions. Bad decisions mean bad consequences or results.= Trump

---

Says you. That's just more subjective garbage. I've seen a lot of bitching and moaning around here for going on two months. Nothing has changed, and the only people who believe any of the unsubstantiated claims being made are you and the rest of the Never Trumpers.

Sorry you're butt hurt.

Obama sucked for 8 years, but I bitched about it less in 8 years than you've bitched about Trump in less than 2 months.

Bring me some real news and I will consider it. In the mean time, I'm not going to waste my time and energy on opinion pieces from clearly biased sources.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
He insisted for weeks his crowds were lager than any other during his inaugural. Now only was this childish but it was a lie.

He said he won the presidential election by the largest margin ever. That's a lie.

For weeks he claimed three million illegals voted and that's why he lost New Hampshire. Not only childish but a lie.

He says Obama wire tapped his phone at Trump Towers. Another lie

He said the crime rates were the highest ever. They are actually the lowest they have been in 40 years. Again a lie

The list is endless Jack. What is it you don't get.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm posting the Breitbart version in full because it is supposedly THE source of Trump's tweet, however, what was published here was also sourced elsewhere, including in the BBC.

Here is the BBC on the surveillance

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.

Full coverage: Trump takes office

Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

---

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


So, is Trump nuts???

No, I don't think so. I think this is full-scale war between the CIA/ deep state and the Trump Administration. Last time this happened, that President wound up dead. I know our gentle friends from outside the USA can't imagine that this could possibly be going on, but yanno... when a world empire is at stake oligarchs will order some crazy shit be done.

The BREITBART VERSION

Quote:

---

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the exisentence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.

Levin called the effort a “silent coup” by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

---

---

Maybe true? Don't tell thuggery, his head might explode - he's more better smarter than us.

---

Really though, the person who would have to ok the wire tap is on the record as saying it didn't happen. This is a man who served this country for the past 50 years.

Let me do the math. Fifty years of service, vs Trump.


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

---

Would that be the same ass clown that promised us all that they would only be recording meta-data, not the contents of phone calls?
And the same ass-clown that danced his way aroung the terms, saying "not ordered" instead of "didn't happen" and "wiretapping" instead of "electronic surveilance" and such?
Are you a gullible fool, or just a Libtard?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But it occurs to me that this shit-slinging - yanno, generating FUD*- is worse than shit-slinging to invade Iraq, because the same techniques to destroy Iraq are being used against our own country.

It's easy to feel complacent even when you KNOW the techniques of destabilizing nations and you see it practiced on other nations. But then, when you see it turned on your own country, that's another thing altogether.

I'll put these thoughts together in the Deep State thread.

* Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
I'm checking out the posts here by SIG and 1kiki and all I can think to say is;

MAN YOU GUYS,,, REALLY HATE AMERICA. IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE A SICKNESS.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I've heard news or promo clips claiming there will be evidence provided tonight, but I don't see references or specifics yet.

http://fortune.com/2017/03/04/trump-wiretapping-fbi-warrent/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!


SGG

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I've heard news or promo clips claiming there will be evidence provided tonight, but I don't see references or specifics yet.

http://fortune.com/2017/03/04/trump-wiretapping-fbi-warrent/

---

For those of you who do not have access to real news, or are scheduled for your FACTS Vaccine Immunization Booster shot, here is an introduction to the real world of facts, truth:

Yes, The criminally corrupt Obama Administration, including the criminal ly corrupt AG, DOJ, and the 17 agencies Obama demanded the illegally obtained electronic surveillance reports be illegally disseminated throughout the government:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!


SGG

---

Well, your belief in Tinkerbell explains a lot!



-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
...And if you clap real LOUD and believe with all your might, you can save Tinkerbell!


SGG

---

Are you sarcastically admitting defeat, Trump was right all along, and your Libtard MSM was lying the whole time to you?

Or are you attempting to use sarcasm to maintain your denial denial denial?

---