Flynn in major trouble for speaking to Russia about sanctions

[TSA]

839861769564798977

:lol this Garland guy is a crack up.

Garland: "BOOM: Paul Manafort had direct connection to Russian intel"

Article: "An associate of an ex-Trump campaign chairman is suspected BOOM :lol of connections to Russian intelligence."
"U.S. and Ukrainian authorities have expressed interest in the activities of a Kiev-based operative with suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence"
"The FBI declined to comment on Kilimnik, while the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear BOOM :lol whether either agency launched any kind of official inquiry into Kilimnik, nor is it clear BOOM :lol whether the interest from the U.S. authorities is ongoing."
"The Ukrainian prosecutor general in August did launch a formal investigation into Kilimnik’s suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. The prosecutor’s office subsequently told POLITICO that it has cleared Kilimnik BOOM :lol"

[spurraider21]

:lol this Garland guy is a crack up.

Garland: "BOOM: Paul Manafort had direct connection to Russian intel"

Article: "An associate of an ex-Trump campaign chairman is suspected BOOM :lol of connections to Russian intelligence."
"U.S. and Ukrainian authorities have expressed interest in the activities of a Kiev-based operative with suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence"
"The FBI declined to comment on Kilimnik, while the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear BOOM :lol whether either agency launched any kind of official inquiry into Kilimnik, nor is it clear BOOM :lol whether the interest from the U.S. authorities is ongoing."
"The Ukrainian prosecutor general in August did launch a formal investigation into Kilimnik’s suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. The prosecutor’s office subsequently told POLITICO that it has cleared Kilimnik BOOM :lol":lol https://www.patreon.com/ericgarland

[TSA]

:lol https://www.patreon.com/ericgarland

:lol djohn2008 what level patron subscription did you purchase?

[TSA]

https://www.patreon.com/ericgarland

I Find Garland Moderately Amusing
$1 or more per month ∙ 0 patrons
Receive my Patron-only feed and accept my daily warm vibes of appreciation.

I Like Where This Is Going
$3 or more per month ∙ 4 patrons
Insider's Newsletter and an official thank you at the footer of each addition.

I'd Like More of This
$10 or more per month ∙ 5 patrons
In addition the above, you'll get an invite to the monthly private Google Hangout where we can chat about the trends I've covered that month.

I'd Like to Go Pro
$25 or more per month ∙ 2 patrons
In addition to the above, you'll receive PDF copies of all four of my books (Future, Inc, How to Predict the Future and WIN, World After Normal, and Observations from Upper Mexico) as well as e-books about special skills to hone your own foresight.

The Inner Circle
$50 or more per month ∙ 1 patron
In addition to the above, you'll be invited to a bi-weekly conference call where you can ask your own questions about the strategic implications of what I'm currently exploring in public.

The Inner Inner Circle
$100 or more per month ∙ 1 patron
All of the above and once a week personal Skype interview discussing the week's biggest BOOM

http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/4bf2b9887f8b9a3a2b940000-480/brian-collins-boom-goes-the-dynamitejpg.jpg

[SnakeBoy]

:lol this Garland guy is a crack up.

Garland: "BOOM: Paul Manafort had direct connection to Russian intel"

Article: "An associate of an ex-Trump campaign chairman is suspected BOOM :lol of connections to Russian intelligence."
"U.S. and Ukrainian authorities have expressed interest in the activities of a Kiev-based operative with suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence"
"The FBI declined to comment on Kilimnik, while the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. It’s unclear BOOM :lol whether either agency launched any kind of official inquiry into Kilimnik, nor is it clear BOOM :lol whether the interest from the U.S. authorities is ongoing."
"The Ukrainian prosecutor general in August did launch a formal investigation into Kilimnik’s suspected BOOM :lol ties to Russian intelligence, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. The prosecutor’s office subsequently told POLITICO that it has cleared Kilimnik BOOM :lol"

:lol

[DarrinS]

Thomas Friedman :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xe4DSHniME

[TSA]

839666400440508416

Whoa: LTG(R) Mike Flynn not even in Trump campaign when any of this occurred. Can I get a BOOM up in here


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michael-flynn-registers-foreign-agent-earned-530k-lobbying-article-1.2993217

According to the filing, Flynn Intel's work involved collecting information about Gulen and pressuring U.S. officials to take action against the cleric, including a meeting in October between Flynn's firm and a representative of the House Homeland Security Committee.

After Flynn joined the Trump administration, he agreed not to lobby for five years after leaving government service and never to represent foreign governments. Flynn's newly disclosed lobbying would not have violated that pledge because it occurred before he joined the Trump administration in January, but the pledge would preclude Flynn from ever doing the same type of work again in his lifetime.

Under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, U.S. citizens who lobby on behalf of foreign governments or political entities must disclose their work to the Justice Department. Willfully failing to register is a felony, though the Justice Department rarely files criminal charges in such cases. It routinely works with lobbying firms to get back in compliance with the law by registering and disclosing their work.

On Wednesday, Alptekin told The AP that Justice Department officials had pushed for Flynn and his firm to register as foreign agents in recent weeks. Alptekin said in a phone call from Istanbul that the changes were a response to "political pressure" and he did not agree with Flynn's decision to file the registration documents with the Justice Department.

"I disagree with the filing," he said. "It would be different if I was working for the government of Turkey, but I am not taking directions from anyone in the government."

[TSA]

Thomas Friedman :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xe4DSHniME

8ajVO6UJyOw

it's worth stomaching for the lol's

[djohn2oo8]

839960496887357440

:lmao TSA

[djohn2oo8]

Spurraider. If you dont like my posts then stay out of the thread. Simpleton.

[spurraider21]

false dichotomy

[djohn2oo8]

839974297049399297

[TSA]

839960496887357440

:lmao TSA

I don't think this is going to end in the BOOM you are hoping for, quite the opposite IMO

[TSA]

Spurraider. If you dont like my posts then stay out of the thread. Simpleton.

Are you one of Garland's 13 patrons? Be honest

[djohn2oo8]

839977450931077120

:lmao conflicts of interest all over the goddamn place

[djohn2oo8]

I don't think this is going to end in the BOOM you are hoping for, quite the opposite IMO

I don't think you want to take any more bets.

[djohn2oo8]

839901333318733825


:lmao

[DarrinS]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

[TSA]

I don't think you want to take any more bets.

I lost from poor wording on my part. You learned a President can order wiretapping without a court. It's all good.

Did my losing that bet cancel out our Priebus charged with obstruction of justice bet?

If that is still on the table I'd be willing to use that as a betting chip.

If that's off I'd be more than happy to hear what you think the outcome of Comey will be and what you'd like to bet.

[Reck]

FBI investigating an odd link between Trump and a Russian bank. :lol

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

[TSA]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbi-russia-story-is-a-minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

He's reported well throughout

In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

Hypothesize for a moment that the "scandal" here is real, but in a limited sense: Trump's surrogates have not colluded with Russians, but have had “contacts,” and recognize their political liability, and lie about them. Investigators then leak the true details of these contacts, leaving the wild speculations to the media and the Internet. Trump is enough of a pig and a menace that it's easy to imagine doing this and not feeling terribly sorry that your leaks have been over-interpreted.

If that's the case, there are big dangers for the press. If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

The press has to cover this subject. But it can't do it with glibness and excitement, laughing along to SNL routines, before it knows for sure what it's dealing with. Reporters should be scared to their marrow by this story. This is a high-wire act and it is a very long way down. We might want to leave the jokes and the nicknames be, until we get to the other side – wherever that is.

[TSA]

FBI investigating an odd link between Trump and a Russian bank. :lol

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

CNN all out of BOOMS :lol

This story is months old

[Reck]

CNN all out of BOOMS :lol

This story is months old

No shit, sherlock.

It got updated. The story is not just appearing on CNN.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=fbi+investigating+trump+and+bank&oq=fbi+investigating+trump+and+bank&gs_l=hp.3..33i160k1.1839.9546.0.9826.33.22.0.11.11 .0.419.2572.1j17j4-1.19.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..3.25.2088.0..0j0i131k1.b wBI3Tis_go

Updated as of 8 and 1 hour ago. :lol

But CNN is fake news. :cry

[djohn2oo8]

FBI investigating an odd link between Trump and a Russian bank. :lol

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/politics/fbi-investigation-continues-into-odd-computer-link-between-russian-bank-and-trump-organization/

Yep. This is where the FBI got det FISA warrant. It's over for Donnie.

[DarrinS]

The MSM is the Russian sub


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDBCiZKZi_g

[TSA]

Yep. This is where the FBI got det FISA warrant. It's over for Donnie.

:rollin

[djohn2oo8]

840037225714860032

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

839994336557301760

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

840037970824519680

[djohn2oo8]

840040281026228225

[djohn2oo8]

840026439005196288

[djohn2oo8]

840030158815924224

[djohn2oo8]

839992790725582848

:lol

[Reck]

The irony here is great.

Crooked Hillary and them servers.

Trump about to get linked to a bank in Russia through servers. :lol

[djohn2oo8]

840053381695721472

[djohn2oo8]

839990634836561922

[djohn2oo8]

840033272562343936

[djohn2oo8]

840008410632450048

[mavsfan1000]

all FAKE NEWS

[djohn2oo8]

839971328602038272

real news

[djohn2oo8]

840192429626126337

[djohn2oo8]

840192892262064128

[Reck]

840192892262064128

If this is true then that salad will go nicely with impeachment.

[DarrinS]

John soldiers on. :lol

[DarrinS]

Proof of collusion. Smiling :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bf3FuFA30o

[Reck]

Darrins seems worried. imo.

[djohn2oo8]

840243160961974273

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

840241710223544320

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

840260483672350720

[djohn2oo8]

840249646895243264

[djohn2oo8]

840260595022745602

[djohn2oo8]

840247382507958272

:lol

[djohn2oo8]

840243081727377409

:lmao exposed that motherfucker

[djohn2oo8]

840237787026726916
Bullying Wikileak niggas left and right

[djohn2oo8]

840233692098371584
Gotdayumm

[djohn2oo8]

840245746037215232

[TSA]

840249646895243264

Do you read any of the articles linked in your tweets? There is nothing shocking or anything even worth reporting on in that article. And it took three journalists to produce that pile of shit :lol

[clambake]

you in deep shit

tsa is here

[TSA]

840237787026726916
Bullying Wikileak niggas left and right

:lol dumb bitch thinking the NSA/FBI/CIA didn't already have this information
:lol you jizzing your pants over every dumb bitch tweet

[clambake]

Do you read any of the articles linked in your tweets? There is nothing shocking or anything even worth reporting on in that article. And it took three journalists to produce that pile of shit :lol

what happened to your avatar? don't tell me this guy is blowing your guns.

[Reck]

:lol dumb bitch thinking the NSA/FBI/CIA didn't already have this information
:lol you jizzing your pants over every dumb bitch tweet

:lol TSA melting down Roger Stone style. :lmao

[TSA]

Looks like I can file melting down in the phrases Reck doesn't understand column

[TSA]

what happened to your avatar? don't tell me this guy is blowing your guns.

Leland Yee will be blowing dicks for running guns. Somewhat of a similar theme for my avatars.

[Reck]

Looks like I can file melting down in the phrases Reck doesn't understand column

Looks like it from where I'm sitting.

You're insulting someone who doesn't even know you left and right. For what? Because she's shitting on your precious wikileaks? Talk about snowflake. :lol

[TSA]

Looks like it from where I'm sitting.

You're insulting someone who doesn't even know you left and right. For what? Because she's shitting on your precious wikileaks? Talk about snowflake. :lol

Insulting someone for thinking she's a step ahead of the NSA/FBI/CIA is a valid criticism. Keep semen shielding for her though, it's cute.

[TSA]

The leaders of the House Intelligence Committee have formally asked the Justice Department to turn over any documentary evidence -- applications, orders or warrants -- related to alleged wiretaps of President Donald Trump and his associates during the campaign, two congressional aides confirm to ABC News.

They have asked DOJ officials to provide information -- if it exists -- by March 13, one aide said. The request was submitted to acting deputy general Dana Boente, who stepped in for Attorney General Jeff Sessions after he recused himself.

The request from House Intel Committee Chairs Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) follows a similar inquiry from Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) earlier this week.

The letter to Boente was first reported by Reuters. Trump accused Obama of wiretapping his phones last Saturday, but he has not provided any evidence and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has said no wiretapping took place.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosi-calls-fbi-director-public-thinks-trumps/story?id=46043251



Over/under of djohn2008 tweets before March 13th set at 50. What do you take?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs on wild goose chase to attack Obama as felon, but no investigation of Trash and his gang with Russia nor of Trash's money laundering for Russian mafia.

[djohn2oo8]

840275492381024257

Flynn singing like a fucking bird :lol

[djohn2oo8]

840311792853237765

Now Stone singing :lmao

[djohn2oo8]

840306752927199234

[djohn2oo8]

840307547508789249

:lmao Even Fox abandoning ship

[djohn2oo8]

:lmao Spicer

840279751763873792

[djohn2oo8]

840301231641919489
Uh oh

[djohn2oo8]

840303724467802113

[djohn2oo8]

840305413501382656

[djohn2oo8]

840326291786256388

[djohn2oo8]

840305654585802753

[djohn2oo8]

840354680177905666

[djohn2oo8]

840310090771136512

[Reck]

Insulting someone for thinking she's a step ahead of the NSA/FBI/CIA is a valid criticism. Keep semen shielding for her though, it's cute.

Let's pretend we dont know each other and are exchanging posts for the first time. I'll ask...

Dont you think is wierd that Trump is in high denial, firing and trying to silence people left and right like he's trying to hide something big time?

What will be will be. No amount of cover up will protect him if he's as dirty as he looks.

[AaronY]

Can you imagine the controversy if someone was the NSA head in the Obama administration while officially working as a foreign agent for a Middle Eastern Islamist government?

[spurraider21]

Can you imagine the controversy if someone was the NSA head in the Obama administration while officially working as a foreign agent for a Middle Eastern Islamist government?trump is a muslim tbh

[djohn2oo8]

840938814352809985McCain knows

[hater]

Can you imagine the controversy if someone was the NSA head in the Obama administration while officially working as a foreign agent for a Middle Eastern Islamist government?

We almost elect a woman president while she was working for and being funded by Saudi Arabia

[djohn2oo8]

840995079204548609

Butt holes gettin tight

[TSA]

840938814352809985McCain knows

Is this going to be another McCain/Buzzfeed/BOOM dossier special? :lol

McCain might want to pipe down before he comes under investigation.

I. The McCain Institute

The McCain Institute for International Leadership is a think tank established in cooperation with Arizona State University. The primary focus of the foundation is combatting human trafficking and promoting a new generation of "national security leaders." The McCain Institute has hosted a number of speaking events over the years, with speakers such as Joe Biden, Ben Affleck, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Governor Chris Christie, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. Board members of the McCain Institute's Human Trafficking Advisory Council include Ashton Kutcher, co-founder of anti-human trafficking group, Thorn. The Institute's Board of Trustees includes Lynn Forester de Rothschild, former general David Petraeus and Joseph Lieberman. Factoring in board members, employees and interns, the McCain Institute has 80 employees assisting their operations in various capacities. With the connections that the McCain Institute enjoys, the expectation would be that they would be using their generous endowments, ample staff and influence to make meaningful strides in the fight against human trafficking. But an inspection of their finances reveals that this is not the case.

II. The McCain Institute Is Not Spending Their Endowment

A review of the McCain Institute's filings with the IRS reveals that they are not, in fact, spending any of their endowment on combatting human trafficking, or apparently on any other expenses. In 2012, the McCain Institute received $8,685,619 in donations, gifts and grants. Yet their expenses were a mere $500,000. In 2013 they again, only contributed $500,000 of their endowment. In 2014, the McCain Institute received $1,305,000 and donated $1,500,000. All of the donations made by the McCain Institute in 2012, 2013 and 2014 went to the Arizona State University Foundation, a group which appears to have nothing to do with human trafficking. Why McCain is not spending his foundation's endowment on anything, let alone anti-human trafficking efforts, raises questions about where the cash is actually going and what it is being used for.


III. John McCain Has A Long History Of Corruption Allegations And Criminal Staff Members Involved With His Campaigns

The McCain Institute's website features a long list of donors that includes Chevron, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Sir Evelyn and Lynn Forester de Rothschild, FedEx Corporation, the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and McCain's own 2008 Presidential Campaign. McCain has always been cozy with big name donors, a habit which has caused him to be accused of impropriety in a number of instances. In 1989 McCain narrowly escaped corruption charges along with four other Senators after it was alleged that they intervened on banker Charles Keating Jr.'s behalf to resist banking regulators in return for financial support. In 2008, McCain was accused of impropriety by Judicial Watch after he accepted campaign donations from multiple members of the Rothschild family in London. Wikileaks also revealed that McCain had improperly lobbied the Russian government for campaign contributions. In 2016, McCain cut off reporters enquiring about a $1 million donation that he had received from Saudi Arabia in 2014. More recently in February 2017, Breitbart accused McCain of corruption after it emerged that McCain, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Lindsey Graham had all accepted donations from George Soros.

Multiple members of McCain's various campaign staff have been arrested in the past on criminal charges. In 2009, the former manager of McCain's Pueblo, Colorado presidential campaign office was arrested on child molestation charges after it was alleged that he had abused a number of young boys; at least one molestation occurred during the time that he was working for McCain. In April 2016, a former fundraiser for John McCain was arrested on multiple felony drug charges, including child endangerment after police found an active meth lab and meth, LSD and cocaine in her house. She had been listed as a contact in fundraising documents for Senator McCain.

The failure of the McCain Institute to actually spend their money on furthering the foundation's stated objectives, Senator McCain's long history courting controversy by attracting accusations of corruption and multiple instances of his campaign staff's involvement in criminal activities raise serious questions about the work being done by his Institute to combat human trafficking and where the money given to it is actually going.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-08/mccain-institutes-failure-use-donations-anti-trafficking-purposes-raises-questions

[spurraider21]

:lol hoaxed by 4chan into thinking it was a 4chan hoax

[TSA]

:lol believing former M16 agent Christopher Steele wrote the golden shower story

[TSA]

841328774847332353
Quite a claim he's putting name on----Judge Napolitano

[djohn2oo8]

Congress getting ready to subpoena the White House.

[Reck]

841328774847332353
Quite a claim he's putting name on----Judge Napolitano

Same guy who said Hillary was about to get indicted? :lmao

[Reck]

Congress getting ready to subpoena the White House.

Subpoena what exactly?

[TSA]

Same guy who said Hillary was about to get indicted? :lmao

"Was about to get indicted" and "could and should be indicted" are not the same. Not surprising coming from someone who thought "on Clinton" and "from Clinton" were the same.

[djohn2oo8]

Subpoena what exactly?

841419663804399616

[TSA]

djohn2008 I need my Garland BOOM fix today. Please provide a tweet or two. A WHOA tweet will work too.

[djohn2oo8]

841419652890791939

[djohn2oo8]

841415832722919424
:lmao about to get subpoenaed

[Reck]

"Was about to get indicted" and "could and should be indicted" are not the same. Not surprising coming from someone who thought "on Clinton" and "from Clinton" were the same.

No, you're just simply a moron who cant tell the difference from can and cant.

That is why you lost your main account. Idiocy.

[Reck]

841415832722919424
:lmao about to get subpoenaed

They already gave them until next monday to come up with the evidence. Too much time imo, specially when they dont have anyting and are clearly just stalling.

[TSA]

841415832722919424
:lmao about to get subpoenaed:lol about to

"The Department of Justice has asked for more time to comply with the House Intelligence Committee's request for information related to possible surveillance of Donald Trump or his associates during the election campaign," Nunes spokesman Jack Langer said in a statement. "We have asked the department to provide us this information before the committee's open hearing scheduled for March 20. If the committee does not receive a response by then, the committee will ask for this information during the March 20 hearing and may resort to a compulsory process if our questions continue to go unanswered."

[djohn2oo8]

They already gave them until next monday to come up with the evidence. Too much time imo, specially when they dont have anyting and are clearly just stalling.

They are letting theme hang themselves some more. There is no evidence. And it will all come out during the hearing.

[TSA]

No, you're just simply a moron who cant tell the difference from can and cant.

That is why you lost your main account. Idiocy.

Can and can't have nothing to do with you claim of "was about to be indicted."

This will go over your had as evidenced by your next reply.

[TSA]

They are letting theme hang themselves some more. There is no evidence. And it will all come out during the hearing.

If true, what are your thoughts on Obama having British intelligence spy on the Trump team as a workaround of spying on a US citizen?

[Reck]

Can and can't have nothing to do with you claim of "was about to be indicted."

This will go over your had as evidenced by your next reply.

You're one stupid fuck. Seriously. Not even an insult.

That is what you are.

You're one of those idiots who likes to get pummel before running and hiding.


So let's start.


He said he is “100-percent certain” that the FBI has enough evidence to indict and convict.


“there is ample evidence to indict her. And the only way she wouldn’t be is if the President or the Attorney General makes a political decision.”


“He (Pagliano) knows who led it and he knows who was in it, and he’s about to spill the beans to a grand jury,” Napolitano said.


The Judge added that Hillary “should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity.”




1. Judge Andrew Napolitano
Judge Napolitano was seemingly ever-present on Fox News during the Clinton investigation, confidently discussing the likelihood of an indictment. Just this past Friday, Judge Napolitano said on Fox Business (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/5017091277001/judge-napolitano-on-lynch-announcement-very-bad-news-for-clinton/?#sp=show-clips) that there was clearly enough evidence to indict and convict Clinton. He went on to say that likelihood of an indictment had “increased dramatically” when it was reported that Lynch would accept the FBI’s recommendation.



And finally:

Since you're a lazy faggot, go straight to 3:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7f5-eCvVxE

:lmao

[TSA]

You're one stupid fuck. Seriously. Not even an insult.

That is what you are.

You're one of those idiots who likes to get pummel before running and hiding.


So let's start.









And finally:

Since you're a lazy faggot, go straight to 3:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7f5-eCvVxE

:lmao

:rollin you shit on yourself again :rollin

Everything you just posted supports "could and should" be indicted. He never said she "was going to be indicted". O'Reiily even asked him straight up if he tought she'd be indicted and he didn't answer yes.

Like I just said, you'd prove your stupidity with the very next post. At least you are consistent, nice self pummeling :rollin

Since you're a stupid fuck, go straight to 3:32

[Reck]

Same guy who said Hillary was about to get indicted? :lmao


:rollin you shit on yourself again :rollin

Everything you just posted supports "could and should" be indicted. He never said she "was going to be indicted". O'Reiily even asked him straight up if he tought she'd be indicted and he didn't answer yes.

Like I just said, you'd prove your stupidity with the very next post. At least you are consistent, nice self pummeling :rollin

Since you're a stupid fuck, go straight to 3:32

:lol

Every single quote backs my main post. He throught she was going to get indicted and that's a fact.

It doesn't matter that he didn't say she would. He thought she was going to which my post indicates. "about to..."

Dumb fuck.

Do you believe the FBI will release the indictment?

Yes.

:lol

[TSA]

:lol

Every single quote backs my main post. He throught she was going to get indicted and that's a fact.

It doesn't matter that he didn't say she would. He thought she was going to which my post indicates. "about to..."

Dumb fuck.

Do you believe the FBI will release the indictment?

Yes.

:lol

:rollin He NEVER said he thought she would be or was about to be indicted :rollin

[TSA]

You're one of those idiots that likes to get pummeled and then come back for multiple pummelings

Proof of this will be your next post :lol

[Reck]

:rollin He NEVER said he thought she would be or was about to be indicted :rollin

Yeah, of coure. He was only on Fox every night parroting and saying every which way she was going to get indicted.

Only a dumb fuck like you doesn't see it. He was a front runner on the Hillary will get indicted now just watch. :lol

The fact you dont see it it's hilarious.

[TSA]

Yeah, of coure. He was only on Fox every night parroting and saying every which way she was going to get indicted.

Only a dumb fuck like you doesn't see it. He was a front runner on the Hillary will get indicted now just watch. :lol

The fact you dont see it it's hilarious.

Was he on Fox every night saying how she could and should be indicted or was he saying how she was going to be indicted?

You can use his quotes from post #1604 you worked so hard on for reference :rollin

[Reck]

TSA doesn't know how to work youtube. I forgot about that. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQ9AF04T0Q

Blonde chick : you really think she's gonna get charged with a felony?

TSA teebagger:Well I think that the FBI will reccomend that she'd be indicted.

:lmao come tell me that's not what he said. :lmao

[TSA]

TSA doesn't know how to work youtube. I forgot about that. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQ9AF04T0Q

Blonde chick : you really think she's gonna get charged with a felony?

TSA teebagger:Well I think that the FBI will reccomend that she'd be indicted.

:lmao come tell me that's not what he said. :lmao

That isn't him saying she will be indicted or was about to be indicted (your claim)
You keep supporting me and shitting on yourself. :lol

[Reck]

That isn't him saying she will be indicted or was about to be indicted (your claim)
You keep supporting me and shitting on yourself. :lol

Is this some alternative Trump reality you live in?

The "think" part is him believing the FBI will reccomend indictment. That is his opinion, not anybody's.

You're so stupid you are still hung up on whether he says she will get indicted vs I think she will which is essentially what he thinks will happen, which in turn means that is his train of thought.

:lol Having to explain basic thinking to you.

[TSA]

You're so stupid you are still hung up on whether he says she will get indicted vs I think she will which is essentially what he thinks will happen, which in turn means that is his train of thought.



I think she is pregnant

She is pregnant

Do you see the difference?

[spurraider21]

I think she is pregnant

She is pregnant

Do you see the difference?yes. scenario A is a retard

[Reck]

I think she is pregnant

She is pregnant

Do you see the difference?

What's your point?

The guy thought she would be indicted and that's the crux of the argument. There are plenty of videos and articles of him saying she would be and that it was eminent. That's pretty much a fact.


She should be prosecuted

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/12/andrew-napolitano-why-criminal-investigation-hillary-clinton-is-back-to-front-and-center.html

For someone doubting she will be indicted and prosecuted, he sure likes to write and talk about it...half a year later. :lol

[TSA]

There are plenty of videos and articles of him saying she would be and that it was eminent. That's pretty much a fact.

If there are plenty of videos and articles of him saying she would be and that it was imminent why haven't you posted one? All you have posted so far is him saying she could and should be, quite different than your claim of him saying she will be.

[Reck]

If there are plenty of videos and articles of him saying she would be and that it was imminent why haven't you posted one? All you have posted so far is him saying she could and should be, quite different than your claim of him saying she will be.

There is this thing called youtube and google. Enough hand holding.

[TSA]

There is this thing called youtube and google. Enough hand holding.

You do realize you've only been posting videos that don't support your claim correct?

[Reck]

You do realize you've only been posting videos that don't support your claim correct?

Of course to you they dont. You wouldn't know what hit you if the rock was the size of your head. :lol

[TSA]

Of course to you they dont. You wouldn't know what hit you if the rock was the size of your head. :lol

Post a video or article of him saying she would be and that it was imminent. Support your claim.

[Reck]

Post a video or article of him saying she would be and that it was imminent. Support your claim.

TSA suddenly forgot all those times he went on Fox to give his Hillary is going to jail soon sermons. :lol

Not holding your hands through this again. Go back and look for the videos and posts and quotes I posted.

[TSA]

TSA suddenly forgot all those times he went on Fox to give his Hillary is going to jail soon sermons. :lol

Not holding your hands through this again. Go back and look for the videos and posts and quotes I posted.

None of the videos and quotes you posted have him saying she would be indicted and it was imminent. Again, support your claim.

[Reck]

None of the videos and quotes you posted have him saying she would be indicted and it was imminent. Again, support your claim.

Go back to my OP, and try not to contort like you usually do.

[TSA]

Go back to my OP, and try not to contort like you usually do.

If we got back to your OP we are right back to you not understanding the difference between "could and should be indicted" and "will be indicted"

Find me a quote or video of him saying she "will be indicted", you've failed to do so up to this point.

[Reck]

If we got back to your OP we are right back to you not understanding the difference between "could and should be indicted" and "will be indicted"

Find me a quote or video of him saying she "will be indicted", you've failed to do so up to this point.

If you go back to my OP you'd know my main point was that he was all horny for Hillary going to jail because the FBI GOT HER! :lol

[TSA]

If you go back to my OP you'd know my main point was that he was all horny for Hillary going to jail because the FBI GOT HER! :lol

Here is what you said


Same guy who said Hillary was about to get indicted?

You've gone on for a day now and have still failed to provide a single quote or video of him saying Hillary was about to get indicted.

[Reck]

Here is what you said



You've gone on for a day now and have still failed to provide a single quote or video of him saying Hillary was about to get indicted.

That's because he thought she would be. His supposed FBI pals feed him the dirt. And everytime he shot blanks.

Just like you. :lmao

[TSA]

The only person shooting blanks right now is you.

Provide a single quote or video of him saying Hillary was about to get indicted.

[Reck]

The only person shooting blanks right now is you.

Provide a single quote or video of him saying Hillary was about to get indicted.

You might want to take up reading pizza meister.

[TSA]

I'm not the one who doesn't understand the difference between could and will.

[djohn2oo8]

841791420889464832
Republicans jumping ship

[spurraider21]

841791420889464832
Republicans jumping shiparmenian twitter going in raw :lol

[djohn2oo8]

841795163664089089
Oh lord.

[spurraider21]

841795163664089089
Oh lord.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/THISGONBGUD.gif

[baseline bum]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/THISGONBGUD.gif

Is it? I have never watched his show.

[spurraider21]

Is it? I have never watched his show.me neither... the returns could be good tho, which is what i was referring to

[djohn2oo8]

me neither... the returns could be good tho

I want to temper my expectations. Damn another hour and 5 minutes to see if true.

[baseline bum]

I want to temper my expectations. Damn another hour and 5 minutes to see if true.

What are you expecting to see? What if he just didn't release them because he was able to pay zero tax like in the return the NY Times published during the election?

[baseline bum]

How would Maddow have a source that wouldn't have gone to the NY Times or the Washington Post if there was something explosive in his tax returns? I'm not expecting much tbh.

[spurraider21]

How would Maddow have a source that wouldn't have gone to the NY Times or the Washington Post if there was something explosive in his tax returns? I'm not expecting much tbh.good point

[djohn2oo8]

What are you expecting to see? What if he just didn't release them because he was able to pay zero tax like in the return the NY Times published during the election?

Idk. But there is no point in teasing an hour ahead of.time if you don't have anything substantial.

[djohn2oo8]

841801318939398145
Don't know what we will see but 45 more minutes.

[Trill Clinton]

841795163664089089
Oh lord.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac95/lassie84/gotreal.gif (http://s889.photobucket.com/user/lassie84/media/gotreal.gif.html)

[baseline bum]

Based on the reporter being brought in for this interview it'll probably be about Trump being a tax dodger.

[spurraider21]

what happened. i'm not tuning into msnbc...

[monosylab1k]

2005 tax returns :lmao who cares?

[baseline bum]

what happened. i'm not tuning into msnbc...

This.

[baseline bum]

Must have been shitty since djohn2oo8 isn't here gloating.

[spurraider21]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/THISGONBGUD.gif
damn

liberal hannity disappointing

[Trill Clinton]

she's building up to it right now. msnbc is going to drag this out and get all the revenue they can. its like the superbowl right now all these commercials. she's about to release what she has after this commercial break.

[spurraider21]

she's building up to it right now. msnbc is going to drag this out and get all the revenue they can. its like the superbowl right now all these commercials. she's about to release what she has after this commercial break.i dont even know what channel msnbc is on directv tbh :lol

i'll wait for a summary

[monosylab1k]

She's like me in 9th grade trying to write a 10 page Civil War paper based on one paragraph of research.

[Mitch]

:lol 38m in taxes, that's what everybody was waiting to see?

[Trill Clinton]

http://i68.tinypic.com/ac4t50.jpg

[Trill Clinton]

this guy is saying don cheeto may have been leaked the taxes himself:lol

[spurraider21]

this is the worst political program i've ever watched

"if there wasnt this tax rule, he would have paid less!"

lmao

[monosylab1k]

:lmao whatever credibility Rachel Maddow had is certainly down the toilet now.

[Mitch]

this guy is saying don cheeto may have been leaked the taxes himself:lol

Sounds like something he'd do, he's done it before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ReG7alYnQ

[baseline bum]

this is the worst political program i've ever watched

"if there wasnt this tax rule, he would have paid less!"

lmao

With lots of shitty sarcasm too right? Fucking cable news is such dogshit.

[spurraider21]

:lmao whatever credibility Rachel Maddow had is certainly down the toilet now.he never did to begin with

[monosylab1k]

She sat down at the poker table, went all in, told everyone she had a royal flush, then at the call she showed a pair of 6's.

I guess that's per usual for cable news, but still, this is just a fucking embarrassment.

[spurraider21]

this is like when people were giddy over wikileaks releases that turned out to be risotto recipes

[baseline bum]

She sat down at the poker table, went all in, told everyone she had a royal flush, then at the call she showed a pair of 6's.

I guess that's per usual for cable news, but still, this is just a fucking embarrassment.

:lol

Like I figured, if it was anything interesting it would have gone to a source with some credibility and not some fucking cable news talking head.

[djohn2oo8]

this guy is saying don cheeto may have been leaked the taxes himself:lol

He did. The second page says "Client Copy" :lol

[TSA]

i dont even know what channel msnbc is on directv tbh :lol

i'll wait for a summary

Or you could just knock on the wall and ask your Dad what happened

[TSA]

841823509810675712

[spurraider21]

Or you could just knock on the wall and ask your Dad what happened
ok

[Spurminator]

Did Maddow just Geraldo herself?

[djohn2oo8]

841830263785164800

:lmao

[djohn2oo8]

841826819041071104

[baseline bum]

841826819041071104

What do you expect Comey to do? You really think this guy is going to put Dear Leader in bracelets?

[TSA]

841826819041071104

BOOM or boom?

[TSA]

What do you expect Comey to do? You really think this guy is going to put Dear Leader in bracelets?

Put him in bracelets for what? Clapper himself said there was no collusion with the Russians. At what point do you realize you've been played by the Obama administration/media?

[djohn2oo8]

What do you expect Comey to do? You really think this guy is going to put Dear Leader in bracelets?

This is probably how it's going to go. "I can't confirm or deny."

[djohn2oo8]

841992793379733504

[DarrinS]

I heard Rachel Maddow has proof.

[AaronY]

She's like me in 9th grade trying to write a 10 page Civil War paper based on one paragraph of research.
Lmao

[TSA]

841992793379733504

You told me yesterday that Comey promised :cry

[baseline bum]

At what point do you realize you've been played by the Obama administration/media?

Because Trump says so? You can't believe a word out his mouth.

[TSA]

Because Trump says so? You can't believe a word out his mouth.

Clapper himself said there was no collusion with the Russians

[baseline bum]

Clapper himself said there was no collusion with the Russians

It's a big media and Democrat conspiracy against Dear Leader when the media publishes leaks from their sources in the CIA?

[djohn2oo8]

842032868041854978

Trump.in deep shit

[djohn2oo8]

842035137986592768
His tower wasn't tapped. The servers were.

[djohn2oo8]

842019080395755521

Looks like we are in the home stretch

[boutons_deux]

842019080395755521

Looks like we are in the home stretch

Trash's money laundering for Russian mafia, olgarchs should be end of his so-called Presidency and freedom

[djohn2oo8]

842010152656113664

Feeling nervous Donnie?

[djohn2oo8]

842038814134665216

[DarrinS]

Trump.in deep shit


Well, you're heavily invested in this thread, so keep your fingers crossed.

Good luck, Rachel.

[djohn2oo8]

Well, you're heavily invested in this thread, so keep your fingers crossed.

Good luck, Rachel.

842037281141727235

:lol Trump

[djohn2oo8]

842057668713938948
:lmao Trump again

[TSA]

842035137986592768
His tower wasn't tapped. The servers were.

"if you take his tweets literally that Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower"

people were taking this literally? :rollin

[djohn2oo8]

842032370295406593

[djohn2oo8]

"if you take his tweets literally that Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower"

people were taking this literally? :rollin

lol yes

[Reck]

841795163664089089
Oh lord.

What a huge dud. Time to retire Rachel.

This actually makes Trump look legit and not a crook. Huge fail on her part.

[TSA]

842057668713938948
:lmao Trump again

Did you even read Nunes statement? This isn't going the way you hoped it would, I tried to warn you.

[spurraider21]

What a huge dud. Time to retire Rachel.

This actually makes Trump look legit and not a crook. Huge fail on her part.
It was awful on her part.

I had to look it up online to find out what channel pmsmbc was on directv so I could check out the reports, and it was the worst political show I'd ever seen. I used to read clips and just assume she's liberal hannity but it was much worse than that

[TSA]

It was awful on her part.

I had to look it up online to find out what channel pmsmbc was on directv so I could check out the reports, and it was the worst political show I'd ever seen. I used to read clips and just assume she's liberal hannity but it was much worse than that

:lol I tried to warn you

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266926&page=2

[monosylab1k]

"if you take his tweets literally that Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower"

people were taking this literally? :rollin

He's serious, except when he's not. He's just joking, except when he's serious. He's speaking Presidentially except when he isn't. He's not to be taken literally except for when he is to be taken literally.

[baseline bum]

It was awful on her part.

I had to look it up online to find out what channel pmsmbc was on directv so I could check out the reports, and it was the worst political show I'd ever seen. I used to read clips and just assume she's liberal hannity but it was much worse than that

I don't know why you were expecting anything else from a shitty talking head on cable news. Once I saw Maddow tweeting it I figured there probably wouldn't be anything interesting there. If I had a good story I would never give it to some shithead like that who would screw up the reporting in a wave of cheap sarcasm.

[Reck]

He's serious, except when he's not. He's just joking, except when he's serious. He's speaking Presidentially except when he isn't. He's not to be taken literally except for when he is to be taken literally.

Trump fans. :lol

[spurraider21]

I don't know why you were expecting anything else from a shitty talking head on cable news. Once I saw Maddow tweeting it I figured there probably wouldn't be anything interesting there. If I had a good story I would never give it to some shithead like that who would screw up the reporting in a wave of cheap sarcasm.
I knew it would be bad which is why I don't watch the show in the first place. But was a worse product than the Fox shows by a mile... Plus the political execution was completely awful

[TSA]

He's serious, except when he's not. He's just joking, except when he's serious. He's speaking Presidentially except when he isn't. He's not to be taken literally except for when he is to be taken literally.

when you read the tweet did you think Trump literally meant Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower?

[TSA]

I knew it would be bad which is why I don't watch the show in the first place. But was a worse product than the Fox shows by a mile... Plus the political execution was completely awful

now that you have seen her in action you've got to watch this for the lol's

8ajVO6UJyOw

[Reck]

when you read the tweet did you think Trump literally meant Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower?

You did.

Isn't that why you bet on your account...and lost. Because you misworded the president can with the president can ask his attorney general etc etc..:lol

[monosylab1k]

when you read the tweet did you think Trump literally meant Obama physically wiretapped Trump Tower?

I'd expect the President Of The United States Of America not to resort to SpursTalk style "lulz i wuz trolling the whole time" tactics but silly me.

[TSA]

You did.

Isn't that why you bet on your account...and lost. Because you misworded the president can with the president can ask his attorney general etc etc..:lol

Just once I'd like to see you get something right, just once.

The bet was about the President being able to order surveillance. I lost by saying he could order a FISA warrant when he doesn't even need a FISA warrant and can order surveillance without having to go through a court.

[Reck]

Just once I'd like to see you get something right, just once.

The bet was about the President being able to order surveillance. I lost by saying he could order a FISA warrant when he doesn't even need a FISA warrant and can order surveillance without having to go through a court.

Conjecture.

You thought wrong, which is the whole point and why you are posting through an alt. :lol TSA

[spurraider21]

Just once I'd like to see you get something right, just once.

The bet was about the President being able to order surveillance. I lost by saying he could order a FISA warrant when he doesn't even need a FISA warrant and can order surveillance without having to go through a court.
Yes but only in the case of communication exclusively between foreigners. That power doesn't apply to the alleged communication between trump and Russians

[TSA]

I'd expect the President Of The United States Of America not to resort to SpursTalk style "lulz i wuz trolling the whole time" tactics but silly me.

Was the New York Times just trolling back in January with their wiretap claims?

[TSA]

Conjecture.

You thought wrong, which is the whole point and why you are posting through an alt. :lol TSA

No shit I thought wrong but you popped in right now and didn't even have the bet right.

And yes I'm posting from an alt because I honored the bet and killed the account I agreed to.

You on the other hand are still posting from the account you lost an ELE bet on. Pathetic fucking welsher.

[TSA]

Yes but only in the case of communication exclusively between foreigners. That power doesn't apply to the alleged communication between trump and Russians

I'm not saying that even happened, but do you really think Holder or Lynch wouldn't have signed off on something like that? Those two aren't exactly known for following the rule of law.

[monosylab1k]

Was the New York Times just trolling back in January with their wiretap claims?

Did they claim Obama was behind it?

[Reck]

TSA is a drama queen. He lives to fight online arguments.

All the traits of a homosexual. :lol

[TSA]

TSA is a drama queen. He lives to fight online arguments.

All the traits of a homosexual. :lol

You love arguing online too, you're just piss poor at it and get BTFO on a daily basis.

[djohn2oo8]

842090373770051585

[TSA]

Did they claim Obama was behind it?

They didn't have the balls to say it and were too pussy to even mention "Obama's NSA" or "Obama's CIA".

[djohn2oo8]

842067387910389760
:lol inadvertently

[TSA]

Looking like Trump was correct more and more each day.

[Reck]

You love arguing online too, you're just piss poor at it and get BTFO on a daily basis.

You have a funny way of seeing me making fun of you as arguing. :lol

But...you welched. :cry

I get a kick out of you whining 4 months later. lmao

[Reck]

Looking like slurping on Trump's cock was the correct move by me more and more each day.

[monosylab1k]

They didn't have the balls to say it and were too pussy to even mention "Obama's NSA" or "Obama's CIA".

So you're saying Obama directly ordered the surveillance?

[Reck]

Looking like Trump was correct more and more each day.

Oh and yeah, the only way Trump would have gotten swept under a russian surveillance investigation is if Trump or Trump's people got themselves in it.

If say police are doing a stake out and the people they are going after meets with you, you will get caught up in that mess. No difference here.

All sorts of Trump people met with the Russians. That's no secret.

[TSA]

So you're saying Obama directly ordered the surveillance?

I believe he knew about it and was okay with it, he wouldn't need to directly order anything and I don't think Obama was stupid enough to directly order it in a manner that would leave a trail back to him though.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/

t✉⎕
363
Rand Paul Is Right: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants
Glenn Greenwald
March 13 2017, 5:54 a.m.
Illustration: Richard Mia for The Intercept
ON SUNDAY’S Face the Nation, Sen. Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.

Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind:

The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.

And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn.

They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans.

Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.

As I documented at the height of the controversy over the Snowden reporting, top government officials — including President Obama — constantly deceived (and still deceive) the public by falsely telling them that their communications cannot be monitored without a warrant. Responding to the furor created over the first set of Snowden reports about domestic spying, Obama sought to reassure Americans by telling Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause.”

The right-wing chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, echoed Obama, telling CNN the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law.”

Those statements are categorically false. A key purpose of the new 2008 FISA law — which then-Senator Obama voted for during the 2008 general election after breaking his primary-race promise to filibuster it — was to legalize the once-controversial Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping program, which the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing in 2005. The crux of the Bush/Cheney controversy was that they ordered NSA to listen to Americans’ international telephone calls without warrants — which was illegal at the time — and the 2008 law purported to make that type of domestic warrantless spying legal.

Because warrantless spying on Americans is so anathema to how citizens are taught to think about their government — that’s what Obama was invoking when he falsely told Rose that it’s “the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause” — the U.S. government has long been desperate to hide from Americans the truth about NSA’s warrantless powers. U.S. officials and their media spokespeople reflexively mislead the U.S. public on this critical point.

It’s no surprise, then, that as soon as Rand Paul was done uttering the unpleasant, usually hidden truth about NSA’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping, the cavalcade of ex-intelligence-community officials who are now heavily embedded in American punditry rushed forward to attack him. One former NSA lawyer, who now writes for the IC’s most loyal online platform, Lawfare, expressed grave offense at what she claimed was Sen. Paul’s “false and irresponsible claim.”

ON SUNDAY’S Face the Nation, Sen. Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.

Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind:

The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.

And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn.

They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans.

Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.

As I documented at the height of the controversy over the Snowden reporting, top government officials — including President Obama — constantly deceived (and still deceive) the public by falsely telling them that their communications cannot be monitored without a warrant. Responding to the furor created over the first set of Snowden reports about domestic spying, Obama sought to reassure Americans by telling Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause.”

The right-wing chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, echoed Obama, telling CNN the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law.”

Those statements are categorically false. A key purpose of the new 2008 FISA law — which then-Senator Obama voted for during the 2008 general election after breaking his primary-race promise to filibuster it — was to legalize the once-controversial Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping program, which the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing in 2005. The crux of the Bush/Cheney controversy was that they ordered NSA to listen to Americans’ international telephone calls without warrants — which was illegal at the time — and the 2008 law purported to make that type of domestic warrantless spying legal.

Because warrantless spying on Americans is so anathema to how citizens are taught to think about their government — that’s what Obama was invoking when he falsely told Rose that it’s “the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause” — the U.S. government has long been desperate to hide from Americans the truth about NSA’s warrantless powers. U.S. officials and their media spokespeople reflexively mislead the U.S. public on this critical point.

It’s no surprise, then, that as soon as Rand Paul was done uttering the unpleasant, usually hidden truth about NSA’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping, the cavalcade of ex-intelligence-community officials who are now heavily embedded in American punditry rushed forward to attack him. One former NSA lawyer, who now writes for the IC’s most loyal online platform, Lawfare, expressed grave offense at what she claimed was Sen. Paul’s “false and irresponsible claim.”


THE ONLY THING here that’s “false and irresponsible” is Hennessey’s attempt to deceive the public about the domestic spying powers of her former employer. And many other people beyond Rand Paul have long made clear just how misleading Hennessey’s claim is.

Ted Lieu, the liberal congressman from California, has made it one of his priorities to stop the very power Hennessey and her IC colleagues pretend does not exist: warrantless spying on Americans. The 2008 FISA law that authorized it is set to expire this year, and this is what Lieu tweeted last week about his efforts to repeal that portion of it:

As Lieu says, the 2008 FISA law explicitly allows NSA — without a warrant — to listen to Americans’ calls or read their emails with foreign nationals as long as their “intent” is to target the foreigner, not the American. Hennessey’s defense is true only in the narrowest and emptiest theoretical sense: that the statute bars the practice of “reverse targeting,” where the real intent of targeting a foreign national is to monitor what Americans are saying. But the law was designed, and is now routinely used, for exactly that outcome.

How do we know that a key purpose of the 2008 law is to allow the NSA to purposely monitor Americans’ communications without a warrant? Because NSA and other national security officials said so explicitly. This is how Jameel Jaffer, then of the ACLU, put it in 2013:

On its face, the 2008 law gives the government authority to engage in surveillance directed at people outside the United States. In the course of conducting that surveillance, though, the government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans. The government often says that this surveillance of Americans’ communications is “incidental,” which makes it sound like the NSA’s surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and emails is inadvertent and, even from the government’s perspective, regrettable.

But when Bush administration officials asked Congress for this new surveillance power, they said quite explicitly that Americans’ communications were the communications of most interest to them. See, for example, FISA for the 21st Century, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Michael Hayden) (stating, in debate preceding passage of FAA’s predecessor statute, that certain communications “with one end in the United States” are the ones “that are most important to us”).

The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans’ international communications — and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal. And a lot of the government’s advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it’s a crucial one: The government doesn’t need to “target” Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications.

During debate over that 2008 law, the White House repeatedly issued veto threats over proposed amendments from then-Sen. Russ Feingold and others to weaken NSA’s ability to use the law to monitor Americans’ communications without warrants — because enabling such warrantless eavesdropping powers was, as they themselves said, a prime objective of the new law.

When the ACLU’s Jaffer appeared in 2014 before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to argue that the 2008 FISA law was unconstitutional in terms of how it was written and how NSA exploits it, he made clear exactly how NSA conducts “backdoor” warrantless searches of Americans’ communications despite the bar on “reverse targeting”:

Those who actually work to protect Americans’ privacy rights and other civil liberties have been warning for years that NSA is able to purposely monitor Americans’ communications without warrants. Human Rights Watch has warned that “in reality the law allows the agency to capture potentially vast numbers of Americans’ communications with people overseas” and thus “currently underpins some of the most sweeping warrantless NSA surveillance programs that affect Americans and people across the globe.” And Marcy Wheeler, in response to Hennessey’s misleading claim on Sunday, correctly said: “I can point to court docs and congressional claims that entire point of 702 [of the 2008 FISA law] is to ID convos involving Americans.”

Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, warned in the Boston Review that the ban on “reverse targeting” was a farce. In fact, “the program tolerates — and even contemplates — a massive amount of collection of Americans’ telephone calls, emails, and other electronic communications.” Thus, she explains, “it is likely that Americans’ communications comprise a significant portion of the 250 million internet transactions (and undisclosed number of telephone conversations) intercepted each year without a warrant or showing of probable cause.”

Even more alarming is the power NSA now has to search the immense amount of Americans’ communications data it routinely collects without a warrant. As Goitein explained: “The government may intentionally search for this information even though it would have been illegal, under section 702’s ‘reverse targeting’ prohibition, for the government to have such intent at the time of collection.”

In the wake of the controversy triggered by Trump’s accusations about Obama’s “tapping” his phones, Goitein wrote a new article explaining that there are numerous ways the government could have spied on the communications of Trump (or any American) without a warrant. She emphasized that “there have long been concerns, on both the right and left, that the legal constraints on foreign intelligence surveillance contain too many loopholes that can be exploited to access information about Americans without judicial oversight or evidence of wrongdoing.”



THIS IS WHAT Rand Paul meant when he said on Sunday that “because [NSA analysts] have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.” And while — as I’ve argued previously — any leaks that reveal lying by officials are criminal yet justified even if they come from the CIA or NSA, Paul is also correct that these domestic warrantless eavesdropping powers vest the Deep State — or, if you naïvely prefer, our noble civil servants — with menacing powers against even the highest elected officials.

The warrantless gathering and searching of vast amounts of communications data essentially becomes a dossier that can be used even against domestic opponents. This is what Snowden meant in his much-maligned but absolutely true statement in his first interview with us back in 2013 that “I, sitting at my desk, could wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.” As Paul put it on Face the Nation: “It is very dangerous, because they are revealing that now to the public.” That’s a serious concern no matter how happy one might be to see Donald Trump damaged or how much one now adores the intelligence agencies.

[Reck]

I'm sure mono will read all that that. :tu

[TSA]

Yes but only in the case of communication exclusively between foreigners. That power doesn't apply to the alleged communication between trump and Russians

Americans’ communications may also be acquired indirectly. Under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), if the target of surveillance is a foreigner overseas, the government, acting inside the United States, can acquire all of the target’s communications, including all of his communications with Americans, without any individualized court order. The FISA Court must approve the broad contours of the program, but it does not sign off on targeting decisions. There are even fewer constraints on foreign intelligence surveillance conducted overseas under Executive Order 12333.

Under both Section 702 and Executive Order 12333, various rules require the government to redact or delete any information about Americans “incidentally” acquired during the warrantless surveillance. However, there are several exceptions. For instance, information about Americans that is necessary to understand foreign intelligence or that is evidence of a crime may be kept and shared. Moreover, once the government has collected the communications, it may search them for information about Americans, which (in the case of information obtained under Section 702) can be used in ordinary criminal cases as well as national security investigations.

https://bostonreview.net/war-security-politics/elizabeth-goitein-how-spy-president

[TSA]

I'm sure mono will read all that that. :tu

TLDR for the developmentally challenged

The NSA routinely spies on Americans without a warrant.

[spurraider21]

Yes so that requires FISA court approval

[TSA]

Yes so that requires FISA court approval

And the FISA court approval rate is like 99.5%?

[Reck]

And the FISA court approval rate is like 99.5%?

Because the evidence you would need to present would be so insurmountable.

There are two ways this plays out.

1.No FISA Warrant was issue and Trump was just being a corny snowflake twiiter user.
2.The warrant was granted based on the clear evidence that there were criminal activies going with Trump or within the people he associates with.

[spurraider21]

And the FISA court approval rate is like 99.5%?
That's a different conversation

[TSA]

Because the evidence you would need to present would be so insurmountable. :rollin

[AaronY]

I'm sure mono will read all that that. :tu
:lmao

[TSA]

That's a different conversation
Do you agree a FISA warrant could easily have been used specifically to target Trump under the guise of targeting a foreigner?

[Reck]

:rollin

Informative.

[TSA]

Informative.

Your statement was absurd and deserved nothing more.

[clambake]

i hope to hell he did order it!

[Reck]

Your statement was absurd and deserved nothing more.

Coming from someone who makes absurd comments 9/10 times he posts, I guess you would know.

Have a FISA PIZZA bro.

[TSA]

Coming from someone who makes absurd comments 9/10 times he posts, I guess you would know.

Have a FISA PIZZA bro.
If the FISA court only approved warrants because it was presented with insurmountable evidence 99.5% of the time why has the process been so heavily criticized over the years?

[DMC]

No shit I thought wrong but you popped in right now and didn't even have the bet right.

And yes I'm posting from an alt because I honored the bet and killed the account I agreed to.

You on the other hand are still posting from the account you lost an ELE bet on. Pathetic fucking welsher.

:lmao

[TSA]

BOOM: Rand Paul now working for Vladimir Putin


The long-simmering war between Sens. John McCain and Rand Paul boiled over on Wednesday when the Arizona lawmaker directly accused his colleague of working for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

While speaking from the Senate floor in support of a bill advancing Montenegro’s bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), McCain noted objection from his Kentucky colleague, saying that if you oppose the measure, “You are achieving the objectives of Vladimir Putin... trying to dismember this small country which has already been the subject an attempted coup.”

McCain continued: “If they object, they are now carrying out the desires and ambitions of Vladimir Putin and I do not say that lightly.”

Several moments later, after the 80-year-old senator asked for unanimous consent to move the bill forward, Paul took the mic to raise his objection before dramatically exiting the room.

In response, McCain began railing against Paul, his voice trembling with anger: “I note the senator from Kentucky leaving the floor without justification or any rationale for the action he has just taken. That is really remarkable, that a senator blocking a treaty that is supported by the overwhelming number—perhaps 98, at least, of his colleagues—would come to the floor and object and walk away.”

He then directly connected Paul to the Russian government: “The only conclusion you can draw when he walks away is he has no justification for his objection to having a small nation be part of NATO that is under assault from the Russians.

“So I repeat again, the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.”

:lol McCain


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/15/john-mccain-rand-paul-is-now-working-for-vladimir-putin.html?via=desktop&source=copyurl

[monosylab1k]

I believe he knew about it and was okay with it, he wouldn't need to directly order anything and I don't think Obama was stupid enough to directly order it in a manner that would leave a trail back to him though.

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/13/rand-paul-is-right-nsa-routinely-monitors-americans-communications-without-warrants/

t✉⎕
363
Rand Paul Is Right: NSA Routinely Monitors Americans’ Communications Without Warrants
Glenn Greenwald
March 13 2017, 5:54 a.m.
Illustration: Richard Mia for The Intercept
ON SUNDAY’S Face the Nation, Sen. Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.

Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind:

The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.

And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn.

They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans.

Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.

As I documented at the height of the controversy over the Snowden reporting, top government officials — including President Obama — constantly deceived (and still deceive) the public by falsely telling them that their communications cannot be monitored without a warrant. Responding to the furor created over the first set of Snowden reports about domestic spying, Obama sought to reassure Americans by telling Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause.”

The right-wing chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, echoed Obama, telling CNN the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law.”

Those statements are categorically false. A key purpose of the new 2008 FISA law — which then-Senator Obama voted for during the 2008 general election after breaking his primary-race promise to filibuster it — was to legalize the once-controversial Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping program, which the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing in 2005. The crux of the Bush/Cheney controversy was that they ordered NSA to listen to Americans’ international telephone calls without warrants — which was illegal at the time — and the 2008 law purported to make that type of domestic warrantless spying legal.

Because warrantless spying on Americans is so anathema to how citizens are taught to think about their government — that’s what Obama was invoking when he falsely told Rose that it’s “the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause” — the U.S. government has long been desperate to hide from Americans the truth about NSA’s warrantless powers. U.S. officials and their media spokespeople reflexively mislead the U.S. public on this critical point.

It’s no surprise, then, that as soon as Rand Paul was done uttering the unpleasant, usually hidden truth about NSA’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping, the cavalcade of ex-intelligence-community officials who are now heavily embedded in American punditry rushed forward to attack him. One former NSA lawyer, who now writes for the IC’s most loyal online platform, Lawfare, expressed grave offense at what she claimed was Sen. Paul’s “false and irresponsible claim.”

ON SUNDAY’S Face the Nation, Sen. Rand Paul was asked about President Trump’s accusation that President Obama ordered the NSA to wiretap his calls. The Kentucky senator expressed skepticism about the mechanics of Trump’s specific charge, saying: “I doubt that Trump was a target directly of any kind of eavesdropping.” But he then made a broader and more crucial point about how the U.S. government spies on Americans’ communications — a point that is deliberately obscured and concealed by U.S. government defenders.

Paul explained how the NSA routinely and deliberately spies on Americans’ communications — listens to their calls and reads their emails — without a judicial warrant of any kind:

The way it works is, the FISA court, through Section 702, wiretaps foreigners and then [NSA] listens to Americans. It is a backdoor search of Americans. And because they have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.

And so they did this to President Obama. They — 1,227 times eavesdrops on President Obama’s phone calls. Then they mask him. But here is the problem. And General Hayden said this the other day. He said even low-level employees can unmask the caller. That is probably what happened to Flynn.

They are not targeting Americans. They are targeting foreigners. But they are doing it purposefully to get to Americans.

Paul’s explanation is absolutely correct. That the NSA is empowered to spy on Americans’ communications without a warrant — in direct contravention of the core Fourth Amendment guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” — is the dirty little secret of the U.S. Surveillance State.

As I documented at the height of the controversy over the Snowden reporting, top government officials — including President Obama — constantly deceived (and still deceive) the public by falsely telling them that their communications cannot be monitored without a warrant. Responding to the furor created over the first set of Snowden reports about domestic spying, Obama sought to reassure Americans by telling Charlie Rose: “What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls … by law and by rule, and unless they … go to a court, and obtain a warrant, and seek probable cause.”

The right-wing chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, echoed Obama, telling CNN the NSA “is not listening to Americans’ phone calls. If it did, it is illegal. It is breaking the law.”

Those statements are categorically false. A key purpose of the new 2008 FISA law — which then-Senator Obama voted for during the 2008 general election after breaking his primary-race promise to filibuster it — was to legalize the once-controversial Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping program, which the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing in 2005. The crux of the Bush/Cheney controversy was that they ordered NSA to listen to Americans’ international telephone calls without warrants — which was illegal at the time — and the 2008 law purported to make that type of domestic warrantless spying legal.

Because warrantless spying on Americans is so anathema to how citizens are taught to think about their government — that’s what Obama was invoking when he falsely told Rose that it’s “the same way when we were growing up and we were watching movies, you want to go set up a wiretap, you got to go to a judge, show probable cause” — the U.S. government has long been desperate to hide from Americans the truth about NSA’s warrantless powers. U.S. officials and their media spokespeople reflexively mislead the U.S. public on this critical point.

It’s no surprise, then, that as soon as Rand Paul was done uttering the unpleasant, usually hidden truth about NSA’s domestic warrantless eavesdropping, the cavalcade of ex-intelligence-community officials who are now heavily embedded in American punditry rushed forward to attack him. One former NSA lawyer, who now writes for the IC’s most loyal online platform, Lawfare, expressed grave offense at what she claimed was Sen. Paul’s “false and irresponsible claim.”


THE ONLY THING here that’s “false and irresponsible” is Hennessey’s attempt to deceive the public about the domestic spying powers of her former employer. And many other people beyond Rand Paul have long made clear just how misleading Hennessey’s claim is.

Ted Lieu, the liberal congressman from California, has made it one of his priorities to stop the very power Hennessey and her IC colleagues pretend does not exist: warrantless spying on Americans. The 2008 FISA law that authorized it is set to expire this year, and this is what Lieu tweeted last week about his efforts to repeal that portion of it:

As Lieu says, the 2008 FISA law explicitly allows NSA — without a warrant — to listen to Americans’ calls or read their emails with foreign nationals as long as their “intent” is to target the foreigner, not the American. Hennessey’s defense is true only in the narrowest and emptiest theoretical sense: that the statute bars the practice of “reverse targeting,” where the real intent of targeting a foreign national is to monitor what Americans are saying. But the law was designed, and is now routinely used, for exactly that outcome.

How do we know that a key purpose of the 2008 law is to allow the NSA to purposely monitor Americans’ communications without a warrant? Because NSA and other national security officials said so explicitly. This is how Jameel Jaffer, then of the ACLU, put it in 2013:

On its face, the 2008 law gives the government authority to engage in surveillance directed at people outside the United States. In the course of conducting that surveillance, though, the government inevitably sweeps up the communications of many Americans. The government often says that this surveillance of Americans’ communications is “incidental,” which makes it sound like the NSA’s surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and emails is inadvertent and, even from the government’s perspective, regrettable.

But when Bush administration officials asked Congress for this new surveillance power, they said quite explicitly that Americans’ communications were the communications of most interest to them. See, for example, FISA for the 21st Century, Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2006) (statement of Michael Hayden) (stating, in debate preceding passage of FAA’s predecessor statute, that certain communications “with one end in the United States” are the ones “that are most important to us”).

The principal purpose of the 2008 law was to make it possible for the government to collect Americans’ international communications — and to collect those communications without reference to whether any party to those communications was doing anything illegal. And a lot of the government’s advocacy is meant to obscure this fact, but it’s a crucial one: The government doesn’t need to “target” Americans in order to collect huge volumes of their communications.

During debate over that 2008 law, the White House repeatedly issued veto threats over proposed amendments from then-Sen. Russ Feingold and others to weaken NSA’s ability to use the law to monitor Americans’ communications without warrants — because enabling such warrantless eavesdropping powers was, as they themselves said, a prime objective of the new law.

When the ACLU’s Jaffer appeared in 2014 before the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to argue that the 2008 FISA law was unconstitutional in terms of how it was written and how NSA exploits it, he made clear exactly how NSA conducts “backdoor” warrantless searches of Americans’ communications despite the bar on “reverse targeting”:

Those who actually work to protect Americans’ privacy rights and other civil liberties have been warning for years that NSA is able to purposely monitor Americans’ communications without warrants. Human Rights Watch has warned that “in reality the law allows the agency to capture potentially vast numbers of Americans’ communications with people overseas” and thus “currently underpins some of the most sweeping warrantless NSA surveillance programs that affect Americans and people across the globe.” And Marcy Wheeler, in response to Hennessey’s misleading claim on Sunday, correctly said: “I can point to court docs and congressional claims that entire point of 702 [of the 2008 FISA law] is to ID convos involving Americans.”

Elizabeth Goitein, the co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, warned in the Boston Review that the ban on “reverse targeting” was a farce. In fact, “the program tolerates — and even contemplates — a massive amount of collection of Americans’ telephone calls, emails, and other electronic communications.” Thus, she explains, “it is likely that Americans’ communications comprise a significant portion of the 250 million internet transactions (and undisclosed number of telephone conversations) intercepted each year without a warrant or showing of probable cause.”

Even more alarming is the power NSA now has to search the immense amount of Americans’ communications data it routinely collects without a warrant. As Goitein explained: “The government may intentionally search for this information even though it would have been illegal, under section 702’s ‘reverse targeting’ prohibition, for the government to have such intent at the time of collection.”

In the wake of the controversy triggered by Trump’s accusations about Obama’s “tapping” his phones, Goitein wrote a new article explaining that there are numerous ways the government could have spied on the communications of Trump (or any American) without a warrant. She emphasized that “there have long been concerns, on both the right and left, that the legal constraints on foreign intelligence surveillance contain too many loopholes that can be exploited to access information about Americans without judicial oversight or evidence of wrongdoing.”



THIS IS WHAT Rand Paul meant when he said on Sunday that “because [NSA analysts] have so much data, they can tap — type Donald Trump into their vast resources of people they are tapping overseas, and they get all of his phone calls.” And while — as I’ve argued previously — any leaks that reveal lying by officials are criminal yet justified even if they come from the CIA or NSA, Paul is also correct that these domestic warrantless eavesdropping powers vest the Deep State — or, if you naïvely prefer, our noble civil servants — with menacing powers against even the highest elected officials.

The warrantless gathering and searching of vast amounts of communications data essentially becomes a dossier that can be used even against domestic opponents. This is what Snowden meant in his much-maligned but absolutely true statement in his first interview with us back in 2013 that “I, sitting at my desk, could wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if I had a personal email.” As Paul put it on Face the Nation: “It is very dangerous, because they are revealing that now to the public.” That’s a serious concern no matter how happy one might be to see Donald Trump damaged or how much one now adores the intelligence agencies.

Obama simply knowing about surveillance is way different than Obama ordering surveillance or somehow having direct involvement in the decision to put surveillance on the Trump camp.

[monosylab1k]

I'm sure mono will read all that that. :tu

:lol

[Reck]

If the FISA court only approved warrants because it was presented with insurmountable evidence 99.5% of the time why has the process been so heavily criticized over the years?

People like criticize things they dont know a thing about. I'll let this juge tell you why.


the court often bounces applications and demands modifications before approval. It does so precisely because the application process is not adversarial and secret.

As Judge Walton noted, the 99 percent figure does “not reflect the fact that many applications are altered prior to final submission or even withheld from final submission entirely, often after an indication that a judge would not approve them.” Those of us with inside knowledge have long known, and publicly said, that the FISA court scrutinizes the government’s applications with special care, but the data to prove it have been missing. Now we have them.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-tougher-media-says

In short, the aproval rate is what it is because the FISA court sends back the warrant when they see something that they dont like which happens at a high rate clip as obvious by the high percentage.

I'd read that whole article for more on it.

[djohn2oo8]

842117663723786246

[TSA]

People like criticize things they dont know a thing about. I'll let this juge tell you why.



https://newrepublic.com/article/115257/fisa-warrants-court-tougher-media-says

In short, the aproval rate is what it is because the FISA court sends back the warrant when they see something that they dont like which happens at a high rate clip as obvious by the high percentage.

I'd read that whole article for more on it.

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with the FISA court being presented with insurmountable evidence, as you previously claimed.

[djohn2oo8]

842135065505157121

[TSA]

842117663723786246

oh my god who would have ever guessed that. Thank you for the update.

[Reck]

Nothing you just posted has anything to do with the FISA court being presented with insurmountable evidence, as you previously claimed.

And? The warrants aren't being handed out for a lack of them either. Insurmountable or not, the evidence must be clear cut.

[djohn2oo8]

842120784617340930

looks.like they have seen a ghost :lol