Judge Napolitano: Obama used British spies for Trump wiretap caper

four FACTS remain regardless of all the BS in this thread:

1: The Director of the FBI requested that the DOJ refute Trumps claims of "wiretapping".

2: The DOJ never refuted the claims as they were asked to do.

3: The Senate sets a deadline foe the DOJ to turn over any evidence.

4: The DOJ asks for a week extension.


Something smells.....if there was nothing to this, the DOJ should have said so when requested by Comey.


I have a feeling the shredders are running 24/7 right now in a lot of agencies.


Popcorn sales are about to go through the roof.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: SBMcG


what about all the Russian spies who DIED shortly after the British dossier came out?

No real proof any Russian spies died.

Is it just me or are the leftists getting even more desperate in their attempts to deflect attention away from the now-proven spying by the Obama Regime on Trump & Co?

originally posted by: RickinVa
four FACTS remain regardless of all the BS in this thread:

1: The Director of the FBI requested that the DOJ refute Trumps claims of "wiretapping".

2: The DOJ never refuted the claims as they were asked to do.

3: The Senate sets a deadline foe the DOJ to turn over any evidence.

4: The DOJ asks for a week extension.


Something smells.....if there was nothing to this, the DOJ should have said so when requested by Comey.


I have a feeling the shredders are running 24/7 right now in a lot of agencies.


Popcorn sales are about to go through the roof.

The extension request by the DOJ was a slam-dunk for me.

My suspicion is that someone is making a deal...

a reply to: Flatfish

That was an affiliate. C'mon. Are you that needy and don't read much?


Fox news....lol

Daily KOS..maybe..site your sources. Please?

Show " fox news " won that suit in the genre and broad brush you hope people see...as fact.
Mg

originally posted by: RickinVa
four FACTS remain regardless of all the BS in this thread:

1: The Director of the FBI requested that the DOJ refute Trumps claims of "wiretapping".

2: The DOJ never refuted the claims as they were asked to do.

3: The Senate sets a deadline foe the DOJ to turn over any evidence.

4: The DOJ asks for a week extension.


Something smells.....if there was nothing to this, the DOJ should have said so when requested by Comey.


I have a feeling the shredders are running 24/7 right now in a lot of agencies.


Popcorn sales are about to go through the roof.

Yes...something is amiss for sure. My guess is there is an attempt to find a true scapegoat they can pin all of the mess they created on. Some entity they can have 100% of the US public believe was the cause and both sides can back out of all claims.

I am betting they did possibly have something on Trump but he found something even bigger on a lot more than a single entity. That something bigger is being used to push for closure on both sides for multiple initiatives in the Trump administration.

Essentially, a deal was made and we will never really know what. Now if I'm right, we will start to see the dems working in a more orderly fashion with the GOP very shortly.

These types of claims don't come out of nowhere and for people to think anyone in any of these positions is stupid....well that would be stupid.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Well then next time you should make your point clear first then we won't have this confusion and you won't feel the need to insult me like an a-hole like you're doing now.

But...why would anyone believe her? She's a pundit on TV, just like Bill Maher.

Obama was their dancing cabin boy and now that he has outlived his usefulness to them by causing race talk and racial division to be a bigger talking point and problem than we ever had between 60 and 1990 now hes getting mowed.

a reply to: SBMcG

a reply to: amazing

Napolitano is the little guy Pirro is probably the one you are thinking about. They are both pundits.

The reason to believe them would be they want to.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: amazing

Napolitano is the little guy Pirro is probably the one you are thinking about. They are both pundits.

The reason to believe them would be they want to.

Oh yeah! LOL

But seriously. I don't think there is anyone on TV that I believe or listen to, left or right.

originally posted by: Grambler

The implications of this are astounding. Obama could spy on his political opponents by requesting Britain use the NSA database and give him the info is abhorrent.

... He has circumvented the US system by having foreigners spy on his political opponent, by using the NSA database.

This doesn't make any sense.

In the first place, the NSA isn't going to fall over and give access to its databases to anyone. They have their own analysts, and if you've ever dealt with these agencies, you know they don't trust or give access to outsiders. They're SURE not going to give it to Britain because the NSA is a global security agency and they spy on Britain.

Secondly, a request from the Queen has no impact on the FBI... and a request from our president has no impact on the British Intelligence Agencies.

Thirdly, the British spy agencies also have rules about ethics and although tv and movies suggests that they'll go spy on anyone at the drop of a hat (or a hint) this isn't true.

Fourthly, things in the NSA's database would be there only if they had a valid court order from a judge to do the spying. TV and movies suggest that all it takes is some director saying "go investigate." The truth is they have to have approved methods AND the approval of a judge and they're not going to put anything in the database that doesn't have judicial approval and uses approved methods because that may be needed to back up a case. And they can't admit illegally obtained information (or use it) in court.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler

The implications of this are astounding. Obama could spy on his political opponents by requesting Britain use the NSA database and give him the info is abhorrent.

... He has circumvented the US system by having foreigners spy on his political opponent, by using the NSA database.

This doesn't make any sense.

In the first place, the NSA isn't going to fall over and give access to its databases to anyone. They have their own analysts, and if you've ever dealt with these agencies, you know they don't trust or give access to outsiders. They're SURE not going to give it to Britain because the NSA is a global security agency and they spy on Britain.

Secondly, a request from the Queen has no impact on the FBI... and a request from our president has no impact on the British Intelligence Agencies.

Thirdly, the British spy agencies also have rules about ethics and although tv and movies suggests that they'll go spy on anyone at the drop of a hat (or a hint) this isn't true.

Fourthly, things in the NSA's database would be there only if they had a valid court order from a judge to do the spying. TV and movies suggest that all it takes is some director saying "go investigate." The truth is they have to have approved methods AND the approval of a judge and they're not going to put anything in the database that doesn't have judicial approval and uses approved methods because that may be needed to back up a case. And they can't admit illegally obtained information (or use it) in court.

Answered in the article I posted on the first page.

One of the most shocking secrets revealed by Edward Snowden has been overlooked by the US media. Documents exposed by the British newspaper The Guardian show that the National Security Agency could be paying foreign intelligence agencies to spy on Americans in the United States.

Specifically, the NSA has paid its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), around $150 million to upgrade its capabilities over the last three years. The GCHQ has used the money to greatly upgrade its electronic eavesdropping capabilities, and some of those activities appear to be aimed at Americans.

The NSA and GCHQ documents Snowden turned over to The Guardian show that the agency worked closely with the NSA in the investigation of a bombing in Times Square in 2010. The journalists believe this means that the GCHQ could have spied on US citizens on American soil, because it was an American citizen who planted the bomb. They note that it is illegal for the NSA to spy on US citizens and legal residents of the US while they are within US borders.

Unlike the United States, Great Britain does not have a written constitution that specifically bans unreasonable searches and seizures. British law also gives spy agencies more leeway to gather information than their American counterparts.

One of the documents obtained by The Guardian is a sales pitch for the GCHQ. The sales pitch is aimed directly at the NSA, and one of the selling points is a legal and regulatory environment in Britain that makes electronic spying easier. It is not illegal for the GCHQ to gather intelligence about US citizens in the United States.

www.offthegridnews.com...

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Grambler

The implications of this are astounding. Obama could spy on his political opponents by requesting Britain use the NSA database and give him the info is abhorrent.

... He has circumvented the US system by having foreigners spy on his political opponent, by using the NSA database.

This doesn't make any sense.

In the first place, the NSA isn't going to fall over and give access to its databases to anyone. They have their own analysts, and if you've ever dealt with these agencies, you know they don't trust or give access to outsiders. They're SURE not going to give it to Britain because the NSA is a global security agency and they spy on Britain.

Secondly, a request from the Queen has no impact on the FBI... and a request from our president has no impact on the British Intelligence Agencies.

Thirdly, the British spy agencies also have rules about ethics and although tv and movies suggests that they'll go spy on anyone at the drop of a hat (or a hint) this isn't true.

Fourthly, things in the NSA's database would be there only if they had a valid court order from a judge to do the spying. TV and movies suggest that all it takes is some director saying "go investigate." The truth is they have to have approved methods AND the approval of a judge and they're not going to put anything in the database that doesn't have judicial approval and uses approved methods because that may be needed to back up a case. And they can't admit illegally obtained information (or use it) in court.

The NSA and GCHQ work very closely together and the GCHQ does have access to NSA programs.
It may not make sense, but then that does not mean it doesn't happen.

Also, British Intelligence not only spies on everyone, including collecting every web site citizens visit, and running surveillance through foreign internet providers, our govt even sneaked in a law to make it all legal.

a reply to: Byrd

You'd be surprised what NWO supporting presidents can see and do.

All the "logic" in the world means zero.

originally posted by: RickinVa
four FACTS remain regardless of all the BS in this thread:

1: The Director of the FBI requested that the DOJ refute Trumps claims of "wiretapping".
2: The DOJ never refuted the claims as they were asked to do.
3: The Senate sets a deadline foe the DOJ to turn over any evidence.
4: The DOJ asks for a week extension.

Let's expand this a bit with some additional facts:

0. Trump claims Obama wiretapped Trump Towers. People start asking for proof. The White House starts walking the statement back (Spicer says Trump put the word, "wiretap" in quotes and didn't mean it literally) This does not let the White House off the hook.

1. The director of the FBI (James Comey, appointed by Obama for a 10 year term) asks Jeff Sessions (appointed by Trump) to supply evidence that his boss (Trump) said exists about this wiretapping. Republicans want to see it so they can prosecute if it exists.

2. Sessions (who had to recuse himself from the Russia investigation because he talked to the Russians) doesn't have anything.

3. The Senate sets a deadline.

4. Sessions asks for an extension (probably because he doesn't have any proof.) The Senate gives him another week.


If, at the end of the week, he still has no evidence, he's going to have to figure out how to say "there isn't any evidence" without losing his new-found job as Attorney General. Trump will be furious.

I hope Sessions has a good retirement fund already set up.

a reply to: Byrd

There's no proof anywhere about Comey saying anything to anybody.

"Fact" juggling is a problem.

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: Flatfish

That was an affiliate. C'mon. Are you that needy and don't read much?


Fox news....lol

Daily KOS..maybe..site your sources. Please?

Show " fox news " won that suit in the genre and broad brush you hope people see...as fact.
Mg

It's been years since I first read the story but I can tell you that the law suit was over a couple of reporters who refused to lie about growth hormones, (or something like that) in milk in order to protect a Fox News sponsor.

In was in Florida and while I suspect that it probably was a Fox affiliate, I'm confident they had the legal backing of the corporate home office.

If you google it, it will come up.

Now, can you cite an instance where CNN, MSNBC, or any of their affiliates sued anyone for the right to lie to their viewers?

I didn't think so.

a reply to: Flatfish

Show them or not Marti Gras...

Nice fade and switch.

No, you prove first. You made it a point. You deny ignorance.

Yes?

Mg

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: Flatfish

That was an affiliate. C'mon. Are you that needy and don't read much?


Fox news....lol

Daily KOS..maybe..site your sources. Please?

Show " fox news " won that suit in the genre and broad brush you hope people see...as fact.
Mg

It's been years since I first read the story but I can tell you that the law suit was over a couple of reporters who refused to lie about growth hormones, (or something like that) in milk in order to protect a Fox News sponsor.

In was in Florida and while I suspect that it probably was a Fox affiliate, I'm confident they had the legal backing of the corporate home office.

If you google it, it will come up.

Now, can you cite an instance where CNN, MSNBC, or any of their affiliates sued anyone for the right to lie to their viewers?

I didn't think so.

I would be interested to see evidence of this.

I however can provide evidence that Obama legalized using propaganda on the US people. Seeing as what your stance is on fox suing to be able to lie means you won't trust them, I assume you will also then not trust anything the Obama administration says.

The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.

The amendment — proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed in the House last Friday afternoon — would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

www.businessinsider.com...

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Obama was their dancing cabin boy and now that he has outlived his usefulness to them by causing race talk and racial division to be a bigger talking point and problem than we ever had between 60 and 1990 now hes getting mowed.

a reply to: SBMcG

I am a constitutional conservative so I don't spend a lot of time studying the lesser leftists out there. I had never even heard of Obama until 2006 or so.

In 2008, when the GOP nominated sure-loser "Songbird" McCain to run against Obama all I thought was -- I hope these leftists vetted this nobody from nowhere because he's going to win.

I warned everyone I knew -- be careful of this guy Obama. He's never done anything, he's got a VERY sketchy back-story, and something doesn't smell right.

But he was a novelty candidate and McCain was the worst candidate in GOP history, so Obama was going to win no matter what.

But as the months passed, I knew something was truly wrong with this dookie. He has an almost preternatural ability to believe his own lies. It was clear to me he didn't care for white males and even clearer to me that his freakishly-large and masculine "wife" truly hated whites in general. His hatred of the military was obvious. They knew it too and booed him on several occasions.

Then Trump entered the picture and started asking about Obama's origins. That resonated with me and from that point forward I became an amateur Obama origins researcher. By the close of business on 27 April 2011 I was 100% certain that all my digging and subsequent suspicions were correct -- "Obama" was using a forged birth certificate.

We know what's gone on since then of course. More lying, more spying. Thankfully, American voters kept his wings clipped for the last 6 years of his presidency. In 2012 the GOP self-destructed again by nominating a Mormon. Millions of Evangelicals refused to vote GOP that year. Obama barely won that election anyway.

Obama has spent his entire life scamming and grifting. Community Organizer...? Give me a break... That was a phony position created for him so his Chicago handlers had time to mold his political persona.

Obama is a fabrication, an empty vessel, and a wholly-corrupt operator.

So here we are. As Obama's final act of contempt for the country I truly believe he hates, he attempts to subvert the electoral process: but there is a universal constant throughout Obama's life. He fails. Everything he's ever touched in politics has ended up a great big Nothing Burger. He got elected to two terms as president, but what's he got for his library -- Obamacare, a law that won't exist by the time the paint is dry?

I have no doubt Obama did what Trump has accused him of. How, when, where, the lesser details -- we might never know.