RIP

This topic contains 555 replies, has 25 voices, and was last updated by steveosnakeeye steveosnakeeye 6 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 556 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1452823
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    there may have been some surveillance going on?
    @jc – The question is NOT if “some” surveillance was going on. There is surveillance of russians, always is, always has been. The question is whether there is any truth in the allegations Trump made that Obama ordered politically motivated surveillance on the Trump campaign.

    Including wiretapping Flynn.
    Flynn was not wiretapped, the “tap” was on the ambassador phone.

    but if they communicate with a us citizen then a warrant is needed.
    Not quite true or practical. Surveillance of foreigners would often normally capture communications with US citizens in the net. This is called “incidental intelligence collection”. The US citizen is not the target and as you say ……………..

    this information is carefully handled
    True. The names of US citizens (if no warrant) is redacted on distributed transcripts.

    but it wasn’t regarding Flynn.
    How do you know this. It was leaked that transcripts from surveillance of ambassador phone (NOT Flynns as you claim) prove Flynn was lying. This leak may well of come from the WH. Many leaks come from WH. Who other than WH staff knew about presidential phone calls to foreign leaders.

    And the NSA and CIA have a long list of violations of law to their name by this point.
    And Trump has a long list of violations of the truth to his name. Do you need a list? Since both Trump and CIA cannot be trusted lets trust the bipartisan Congressional committee investigations that Trump himself called for.

    I cannot believe even after Trump gives credence (why else mention it) to the utterly ridiculous claim GCHQ bugged him, his supporters continue to wriggle on the hook trying to find a way to prove Trump was right all along.

    #1452828
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    I disagree with your portrait that it’s simply routine… There was a big diplomatic fallout when the Obama administration were caught wiretapping Merkel a few years ago. They got into hot water over the wiretapping of many political figures… Ban Ki-Moon, Sarkozy, the list goes on and on. But nobody cares if it’s Russia.

    You claim this information is carefully handled, but it wasn’t in Flynn’s case… As you say, they need a warrant to legally use the name of a US citizen in transcripts. They didn’t adhere to that, and furthermore proceeded to leak it to the press.

    Transcripts of phone calls and wiretapping is the domain of the intelligence agencies, and that’s where the journalists receiving the leak say it came from. I know you don’t like the current incumbents of the WH, but come on. They’re not the ones responsible for leaking Flynn’s conversation… and that is ‘blatantly obvious’.

    All the same it’s been interesting talking to you about it.
    Yeah it will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals. I reckon the wiretapping claim will not be substantiated, from what I’ve heard, it sounds a bit ridiculous to me haha. But there is also a serious matter of illegal leaks of classified material within the US intelligence community, and to me that’s a more serious matter than Trump’s twitter feed. And a genuine problem backed up by plenty of evidence.

    #1452837
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    You claim this information is carefully handled, but it wasn’t in Flynn’s case
    @jc – The leaks is a separate issue that has nothing to do with validating the claims Trump made in his Tweets. Talk of leaks is moving the wiretap goalposts.

    Regarding Flynn I’m not sure there have been leaks. Once Pence did a U Turn and said Flynn either lied or forgot it didn’t take rocket science to work out the russian ambassador would be bugged and conversations recorded. Nothing has come out about what was actually said.

    Yeah it will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals.
    Trump hints at interesting revelations yet to come. But there has been nothing so far. Not even a leak about revelations to come. How much you want to bet there is nothing, zip, nada. and the congressional committees will conclude there is no evidence to support Trump acccusations.

    In fairness they are not Trump accusations. He is merely repeating what the right wing media says. He admitted as much about the GCHQ allegations and Spicer has pretty much confirmed Trumps source of information for his Tweets was the media.

    #1452864
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @jc – Incidentally, I just looked at Judge Napolitano site about the GCHQ claim. On Fox he stated 3 sources confirmed to Fox News that Obama DID use GCHQ. Then after the storm came Fox distanced themselves and said they had no confirmation what Napolitano said was true. Clearly he lied when he said the sources told Fox.

    One of his sources now turns out to be a discredited former intelligence officer who had made claims Michelle Obama made racist comments. It further turns out the source had made his GCHQ allegation on Russian (surprise surprise) television.

    Furthermore on his website he now explains how Obama could have used GCHQ IF he wanted. IF is a far cry from DID.

    My point is these right wingers come up with disinformation aimed at discrediting their political opponents. Trump (like many) reads these reports and then bases his tweets and statements solely on these unsubstantiated reports. Most of the time the untruth is quickly exposed and forgotten. He goofed this time because he accused a former president of a crime and demanded congressional investigation.

    http://www.judgenap.com/post/did-obama-spy-on-trump

    #1452865
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    The GCHQ stuff is from a right wing lawyer. The original story about wiretapping was from left wing outlet, New York Times. You’ve tried to pin that on right wing journos 3 times now, sometimes when you sling mud it sticks but in this case it seems like you have an axe to grind. You even said yourself that Fox News distanced themselves from the GCHQ claims… So while I don’t disagree with your point, in this specific case the right wing media don’t seem to have done anything wrong.

    The leaks are relevant, because it hints at political motive (an avalanche of leaks, all against Trump), and willingness from staff at intelligence agencies to break away from normal procedures, and even break the law.

    Flynn’s convo certainly was leaked, to the Washington Post:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-security-adviser-flynn-discussed-sanctions-with-russian-ambassador-despite-denials-officials-say/2017/02/09/f85b29d6-ee11-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.0226524aa477

    #1452883
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @jc – I just posted about Napolitano. I said in previous posts issues have been (deliberately?) conflated.

    1] There is the issue of FBI surveillance on the russians (banks) and investigation into russian ties with Trump. Yes, this is reported by NYT, BBC etc. This is surveillance of foreigners (ie russians) for state security reasons

    2] Then there is the accusation Trump made in his tweets. This is surveillance of US citizen for political reasons (Trump said like Watergate) This is only coming from extreme right wingers like Fox, Levine and Napolitano.

    Spicer said Trumps tweets speak for themselves. Let’s remind ourselves what Trump said.

    How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

    Trump needs to substantiate this allegation. Congress will almost certainly conclude this allegation is, like the GCHQ claim, …. utterly ridiculous.

    Yes I agree its wrong of “officials” to talk about Flynn conversation but isn’t the WPO article dated after the cat was pretty much out of the bag. I am happy to discuss leaks but thats another issue, unless you are trying to say leaks in the intelligence community substantiates a claim that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump. Are you?

    #1452892
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    (double posted for some reason, see below)

    #1452893
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    No, the Washington Post leaked the Flynn wiretapped conversation, and that’s where the story stemmed from. It was pretty innocent stuff (just read the article I linked), but he ended up being fired because he hadn’t disclosed the full details to Pence/Trump.

    You didn’t read the NYT article did you on the previous page, it mentioned wiretapping, it’s the very article Trump says he read that sparked his tweet. Given the genuine leaks to press, and genuine wiretapping recently, I can see why he’d read that and believe it.

    How is the fact that they’ve leaked against Trump multiple times, and broken laws, not relevant?
    As I said, I agree that Trumps claims were rash and likely to be unsubstantiated but these facts are still relevant since they accurately portray the current level of ethics and political landscape within the US intelligence community.

    #1452935
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @jc – Okay looks like I’ve got to box you into a corner with Trump.

    1] The issue is Trump’s allegation that Obama ordered “wiretap” on Trump (phones). Lets not argue about quotation marks. He is basically saying Obama ordered surveillance on Trump (and his staff) for political reasons (ie Nixon/Watergate).

    Q1 – Do you agree (a) this is the issue Trump asked the Congressional Committees to look into and (b) the issue they have investigated (c) and concluded so far there is no evidence to support this claim,

    2] I read the NYT article https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html It discusses russian hacking and possible ties to Trump.

    F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank.

    Q2 – NOWHERE does it mention “wiretaps” on Trump. Can you quote where in that article it talks about “wiretaps” ?

    3] WPO article on 11 February reports Flynn DID talk about sanctions according to “official sources”. Yes the official sources are out of order discussing this with the WPO but stories based on “official sources” happens all the time.

    Q3 – Can you explain how officials leaking information about Flynn proves that Flynn or Trump were put under surveillance by Obama?

    4] Trumps tweets were aimed at Obama (ie “bad or sick guy”) wiretapping Trump, not (the ethics of) the intelligence community. You agree Trumps claims are “likely to be unsubstantiated” despite thorough investigation by Congress and all relevant intelligence agencies.

    Q4 – Is it therefore fair to say Trump was not “wiretapped” and his claim is false.

    #1452957
    MacGuffin
    MacGuffin
    Participant
    • :

    @jc – This is the problem. IF the President reads the National Enquire over his breakfast coffee and there is an article saying

    ALIEN SPACESHIP LANDS IN CENTRAL PARK

    Trump would see nothing wrong with tweeting something like ……..

    Aliens landing in New York is going to cause problems for the police if they are rapists like the Mexicans.

    He does not appreciate that his tweet or statement is taken as confirming the truth of the report. It turns fiction into fact. It would be less of a problem if he cited his source but without the source people assume his information is coming from government agencies and is therefore true.

    #1452972

    CM
    Participant
    • :

    The reason Trumps tweets what he does is because a fair few of his backers do not look past his tweets for news. The 3 million illegal immigrants voting for Hilary is a prime example. I maybe wrong in regards to the origin of that, but I read that it started off with someone tweeting it without any foundation and Trump seeing it, just followed it up. Coincidence the number 3 million is the same number that Hilary won the popular vote by, so someone will tweet tosh to save face in regarda to knowing Trump the popular vote. Trump can Tweet that there are monsters under your bed and some would probably believe it and abandon their bedroom. That’s how silly it has got and how people can manipulate the truth on social media.

    A prime example is this-

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/trolls-claim-muslims-attacked-child-10041799.amp

    Unfortunately that is todays www and social media society, it happens on both sides. The left boycott or ridicule news stations or sources like fox news, Trump etc. The right boycott or ridicule BBC, CNN or Owen Jones. There isn’t a middle ground unless you do your own fact checking.

    #1452986
    Jay belfast
    Jay belfast
    Participant
    • :

    even that story itself is a disgrace. Some nut job online claims a boy is attacked by terrorists is barely even a story but how do they make it into a story?! Litter it with “trump supporter”.

    Trump is a wally, an idiot and dengerous but articles like this annoy me. It’s tars him with the same brush and just sensationalist bs.

    #1453025
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    Nice to see people acknowledging the existence of bias on both sides, and the need to put a bit of thought in before digesting your news.

    Q1: I know little about the ongoing investigation. Whether he ordered it or not, like with Merkel (et all) Obama can say it wasn’t him, but he was their manager. And as far as I’m concerned that makes him responsible for what they do. And Merkel also directed her complaints to Obama when she found out she’d been wiretapped by US intelligence. He’s the natural person you’d look to blame first.

    Q2: This is where I’ve finally lost patience with you, because I posted this on the previous page, you read and replied to this… and you’re just wasting my time now.
    Not only does it mention wiretap, the article was originally titled with the word wiretap (they later edited that out). Do ‘ctrl+f’ and type in wiretap.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

    I stopped reading the rest. I’m not wasting any more of my time trying to fix your bad information. I’m starting to think it’s more than just your information that’s bad.

    #1453042

    NotoriousBingo
    Participant
    • :

    read the vault7 leak, it explains everything…

    #1453063
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    Yeah a lot of interesting (and worrying) stuff in vault 7.

    Tells you a lot about the inner workings of the CIA under Obama.

    #1453259

    NotoriousBingo
    Participant
    • :

    Good to know the news are spreading out…

    #1453593
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    CNN and other news were recently leaked transcripts of wiretapped calls between Trump and the Mexican president, and Trump and the Australian president too.

    Obviously leaking classified info to the press is illegal, but the actual eavesdropping sounds pretty illegal too. Hopefully they find who’s doing this and put them to justice, because this type of info (en-mass surveillance of just about everyone) is highly sensitive and people shouldn’t just be able to do whatever they want with it. Especially not use it for political motives.

    #1453843
    Johnny Utah
    Johnny Utah
    Participant
    • :

    The heads of the NSA and FBI have both called Trump a liar today and the FBI have admitted they are investigating the Trump campaigns links to Russia. Turns out the Russians hacked both campaigns but only released the Democrat information. Oops.

    #1453845

    CM
    Participant
    • :

    No matter how much Trump deflects, the links with Russia will always have a black cloud over his head until things are cleared up.

    Loved his commentary today, some of his narrow minded following will not look beyond that.

    #1453848
    j c
    j c
    Participant
    • :

    Yeah that’s the headline in the leftist news Johnny, “FBI admit criminal investigation into collusion between Trump campaign and Russia!”

    Meanwhile in the small print… they’ve been investigating this ever since the election result, and are yet to produce any evidence. They have managed to illegally leak a few mildly embarrassing ‘wiretapped’ conversations though.

    Why wait till after the election anyway, to investigate something as serious as a presidential candidate possibly being involved in crimes against their opponent?
    Surely that’s something you’d resolve asap and before the actual election…

    If there were suspicions Trump had sent some specialists over to Russia to help commit the hack on Hilary or something along those lines, I’d see the point in the Russia investigation. But I really don’t see what the FBI think the threat to national security is here? And why they didn’t think that was a threat until after the election result.

    On a sidenote, the US national debt is now down by 100 billion since Trump took office! That’s pretty extraordinary considering it was predicted to keep on rising.

Viewing 20 posts - 261 through 280 (of 556 total)

You must be logged in to reply this topic.