Sara Carter Is Back And She Lets On That Trump Wiretap Traces To The top

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again...

Obama was president. He either knew about the "wiretapping" and illegal dissemination of the intelligence collected or he didn't. If he knew about it, he was in on it. If he didn't, he's even more clueless than I thought.

Your opinion on his intelligence isn't really a valid rebuttal against him being guilty. It seriously looks like you have only left room in your head for one possibility here and ALL evidence must fit that possibility or be ignored.

I have lots of room in my head. if you can provide evidence that exonerates Obama, who was president at the time of the Flynn wiretap, I'm listening.

Come y says FBI and Justice Department have no information supporting Trump's wiretapping claims

"With respect to the president’s tweets," Comey testified at the House intelligence committee, "I have no information that supports those tweets. We have looked carefully inside the FBI."

Responding to a question by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), the ranking Democrat on the committee, Comey added that the Justice Department asked him to convey that it also had not been able to uncover any information related to such wiretaps.

That's an old story. A lot has changed since then. The Nunes revelations rendered the Comey testimony irrelevant.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But it proves he's pathetic either way. He either ordered it or failed as a leader.

In your opinion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

How do you know that his name shouldn't have been exposed ("unmasked" non-"minimized")?

That's not what I said. I said:

The unmasking may have been legal but running to the press, leaking his phone call and identity, are all illegal.

Leaking classified information is technically illegal, but as it was used to identify an apparent liar and foreign agent that had been nestled into President Trumps White House staff ... I think we all appreciate leaks that help reveal dirty politicians, right?

Flynn isn't being prosecuted, right? So I'd guess it was more of a smear job than the outing of a foreign agent. But I haven't followed the Flynn story much.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, it's verifiable. Does a good leader foster a criminal environment? No.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Whether obama ordered it or not, he created the environment that allowed it to happen.

This is the heart of the matter.

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Flynn isn't being prosecuted, right?

Not that we know of, as yet.

a reply to: Phage

A quick google search says the FBI is not looking to prosecute flynn. But that was just the few headlines I read through.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Flynn not prosecuted?

Not yet.

You'd "guess"?

Yeah, that's reliable.

a reply to: SBMcG

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

False dichotomy. If you're saying that only Obama could have authorized any of the surveillance which was carried out.

a reply to: SBMcG

No. It doesn't. Incidental collection is 100% legal. Nunes words do not invalidate Comey's testimony. Its words like this that prove you don't care about evidence only your predetermined conclusion. As your interpretation of the evidence veers DRASTICALLY away from the direction the rest of reality is going.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Nope, it's verifiable. Does a good leader foster a criminal environment? No.

Actually everything you are saying is purely an opinion.

Who was president when Flynn was "wiretapped" and then that intelligence leaked illegally...?

Yes Donald Trump and his team were spied on and yes this happened when Barack Obama was the president.

The Establishment Media Lied: Trump Was Right All Along About Obama Admin Surveillance

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It really isn't. Is there really disagreement on whether a good leader fosters a criminal environment?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

No. It doesn't. Incidental collection is 100% legal. Nunes words do not invalidate Comey's testimony. Its words like this that prove you don't care about evidence only your predetermined conclusion. As your interpretation of the evidence veers DRASTICALLY away from the direction the rest of reality is going.

You continue to be completely wrong.

The crime is the UNMASKING of surveillance targets and the widespread dissemination of that intelligence to inappropriate parties.

My "interpretation" of the evidence available is spot-on. Simple proof: The Obama Regime "wiretapped" Flynn and illegally leaked that intel.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It really isn't. Is there really disagreement on whether a good leader fosters a criminal environment?

It really is and you should go reread the definition of an opinion if you think otherwise. In any case, nothing you are talking about is criminal. As for your question, it is a leading question. I never said I agreed with your opinion that Obama fostered a criminal environment (since you've yet to prove this is the case) so I am not going to answer your leading question fallacy.

The logical fallacies in these TrumpCult positions are absurd.

Here's a reasonable statement that most logical people can agree with:

"Some Trump staff members have been the focus of investigations (including surveillance) carried out by the FBI/DOJ."

What we here from CrazyTrumpTown is:

"The Trump Campaign was spied on by the Obama Regime!!!!"

One is reasonable based on the facts we know, one is utter rhetorical horsefeces.

a reply to: Gryphon66

According to "FBI Sources" from what I read.
Read away

originally posted by: SBMcG
You continue to be completely wrong.

You continue to not be able to stick to one criminal charge and constantly shift the goal posts on me.

The crime is the UNMASKING of surveillance targets and the widespread dissemination of that intelligence to inappropriate parties.

Trump said he was illegally wiretapped not that names in an investigation into Russian mob ties 3 years ago were illegally unmasked (which has no proven connection to Obama). This means that in order for Nunes' claim to hold the kind of weight you are suggesting, the actual case of incidental collection would have to be illegal. Leaking names can easily just be a solo action. There are plenty of leakers who act by themselves. In fact, that's how they usually operate. So if you are going with the unmasking angle, you actually weaken the case that Obama was guilty of anything.

My "interpretation" of the evidence available is spot-on. Simple proof: The Obama Regime "wiretapped" Flynn and illegally leaked that intel.

Saying things like "Obama Regime" also prove your bias.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Obama either ordered it, or he didn't.

False dichotomy. If you're saying that only Obama could have authorized any of the surveillance which was carried out.

It's absolute fact. Whomever ordered it, it was done while Obama was president. I believe there were 15 or 20 members of the Obama Regime who could have order the wiretapping. I think any reasonable person would find it completely incredulous to believe that Obama did not at least know about the wiretapping. If he didn't, that's a whole other issue of incompetence...

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

According to "FBI Sources" from what I read.
Read away

You read titles on a Google search page?

Okay.