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

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who said illegal surveillance, then? Not Trump.

Like I said, they interpret when required, but parse every word when it suits.
Totally dishonest people.

a reply to: UKTruth

If it's not illegal, why would it go court?

If it's not illegal, why would Mr. Trump be (rhetorically) asking if it were legal?

That's not interpretation; that's reading comprehension.

Are you saying that the President of the United States doesn't understand illegal "wiretapping"?

Jeez.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Who said illegal surveillance, then? Not Trump.

If it's not illegal, what's the issue?

Also, do you have any evidence that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump? Legal or illegal?

If so, please share it with us.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

If it's not illegal, why would it go court?

If it's not illegal, why would Mr. Trump be (rhetorically) asking if it were legal?

That's not interpretation; that's reading comprehension.

Are you saying that the President of the United States doesn't understand illegal "wiretapping"?

Jeez.

The fact is he did not say it was illegal.
He asked a question and 'bet' that a case could be made.

Why are you not taking the exact words for the legal aspect?
And no, I don;t think Trump would have known whether it was legal or not, which is nothing bad, unless you want to spin some propaganda with that too?

Best you back track on your need for anyone to prove it was illegal, you've been caught changing your approach from parsing to interpreting when it suits you.



ETA : oh I see you have already back tracked. Good. Hopefully you will learn a lesson.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you ever heard of ethics? Are you really comfortable with the sitting president getting daily reports on secretly recorded information from the opposition's candidate for president?

Also, do you have any evidence that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump?

If there was a FISA warrant (as reported by many MSM outlets and alluded to by Nunes and Comey) that's pretty damning evidence.

a reply to: UKTruth

But, you're arguing here that we have to INTERPRET what the President actually SAID because obviously he can't just type what he means ... right?

Where would a case be made again? Would it be in a court of law? Where some law had been broken, thereby making it an illegal act?

You don't think that it's important that the PRESIDENT didn't have a basic understanding of privacy? Or of the laws regarding surveillance??? Wow, you're not asking for much from him are you?

Please curtail your personal comments in an attempt to sidetrack the argument. This isn't the Mud Pit.

Now, do you (or OP) have any evidence that Mr. Obama ordered surveillance on Mr. Trump at any point ... or not?

If not, what's the point of the discussion?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

Have you ever heard of ethics? Are you really comfortable with the sitting president getting daily reports on secretly recorded information from the opposition's candidate for president?

Also, do you have any evidence that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump?

If there was a FISA warrant (as reported by many MSM outlets and alluded to by Nunes and Comey) that's pretty damning evidence.

Yes, I have heard of ethics. What I am comfortable with is not the topic.

Do you have evidence of "the sitting president getting daily reports on secretly recorded information from the opposition's candidate for president"?

If so, please share that information with us.

If there was a FISA warrant, it's a court order, not an order from President Obama.

Why is that damning again?

And also, do you have evidence that there was a FISA warrant issued that approved surveillance of Mr. Trump?

Thanks.

originally posted by: elouina
If you go back to my earlier topic you will see that Sara Carter has insider info from the Trump admin.

This is from the OP.

Sara Carter appeared on Hannity, an infotainment program on the Fox News Channel.

The only evidence presented is "insider info" which is equivalent to "unnamed sources" which have been roundly condemned as "fake news."

I'm asking if there's any real evidence of the surveillance by Mr. Obama of Mr. Trump, that the President claimed in his tweets.

Does that exist or does it not?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you have evidence of "the sitting president getting daily reports on secretly recorded information from the opposition's candidate for president"?

Sure, the daily intelligence briefing includes intelligence gathered from FISA warrants. The president is aware of and briefed on every approved/active FISA warrant.

If there was a FISA warrant, it's a court order, not an order from President Obama.

Who lobby's the court for a FISA warrant? The president through the AG. Further, trump clarified that he meant the Obama administration, not Obama personally.

And also, do you have evidence that there was a FISA warrant issued that approved surveillance of Mr. Trump?

This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA". Even if I had personally seen the FISA warrant, I couldn't share that information here. But will you at least admit that IF it comes to be known that there was a FISA warrant, it looks pretty bad for the obama administration.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

But, you're arguing here that we have to INTERPRET what the President actually SAID because obviously he can't just type what he means ... right?

Where would a case be made again? Would it be in a court of law? Where some law had been broken, thereby making it an illegal act?

You don't think that it's important that the PRESIDENT didn't have a basic understanding of privacy? Or of the laws regarding surveillance??? Wow, you're not asking for much from him are you?

Please curtail your personal comments in an attempt to sidetrack the argument. This isn't the Mud Pit.

Now, do you (or OP) have any evidence that Mr. Obama ordered surveillance on Mr. Trump at any point ... or not?

If not, what's the point of the discussion?

So you don't want to hold Trump to exactly what he said regarding legality... figures.
NOW you want to have a discussion about what he meant.

That might be progress I suppose, so lets apply it.

He meant that the Obama administration was spying on him and that it might not be legal.

He is 100% correct.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Do you have evidence of what was included in the daily intelligence briefings? If so, please share it with us.

Do you have evidence of what was included in the FISA warrants you're gesturing to? If so, please share it with us.

Mr. Trump's claim in his tweets (although I do realize we can't take him at what he actually said) is that he was surveilled at the direction of President Obama.

Again, do you have any evidence that President Obama ordered Mr. Trump to be surveilled?

If so, please share it with us.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm very willing to hold Mr. Trump to what he says ... but you say we can't do that. You claim we have to interpret what he says, allow for subsequent clarification, etc. Make your mind up.

Do you have evidence that the Obama Administration was spying on Mr. Trump? Please share that with us.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

But, you're arguing here that we have to INTERPRET what the President actually SAID because obviously he can't just type what he means ... right?

Where would a case be made again? Would it be in a court of law? Where some law had been broken, thereby making it an illegal act?

You don't think that it's important that the PRESIDENT didn't have a basic understanding of privacy? Or of the laws regarding surveillance??? Wow, you're not asking for much from him are you?

Please curtail your personal comments in an attempt to sidetrack the argument. This isn't the Mud Pit.

Now, do you (or OP) have any evidence that Mr. Obama ordered surveillance on Mr. Trump at any point ... or not?

If not, what's the point of the discussion?

So you don't want to hold Trump to exactly what he said regarding legality... figures.
NOW you want to have a discussion about what he meant.

That might be progress I suppose, so lets apply it.

He meant that the Obama administration was spying on him and that it might not be legal.

He is 100% correct.

100% correct.

Amazing! No room for doubt there.

Give us the evidence then.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm very willing to hold Mr. Trump to what he says ... but you say we can't do that. You claim we have to interpret what he says, allow for subsequent clarification, etc. Make your mind up.

Do you have evidence that the Obama Administration was spying on Mr. Trump? Please share that with us.

Which do you want to do? Interpret the meaning or focus only the words. At the moment you are doing both, swapping when it suits your narrative. Very dishonest as is plain to see.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I'm very willing to hold Mr. Trump to what he says ... but you say we can't do that. You claim we have to interpret what he says, allow for subsequent clarification, etc. Make your mind up.

Do you have evidence that the Obama Administration was spying on Mr. Trump? Please share that with us.

Which do you want to do? Interpret the meaning or focus only the words. At the moment you are doing both, swapping when it suits your narrative. Very dishonest as is plain to see.

So now it's to be obfuscation and spin.

Really UK ... it's very simple.

Do you have the evidence to back up your claim (100% correct) that the Obama Administration was "spying" on Mr. Trump during the campaign?

You claim to know that. Is your knowledge based on fact or belief?

I saw this on Yahoo today, it is interesting and this official is not afraid to say what happened. He states clearly that what happened overall is illegal. www.yahoo.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse
I saw this on Yahoo today, it is interesting and this official is not afraid to say what happened. He states clearly that what happened overall is illegal. www.yahoo.com...

Wonder why Yahoo tries to conceal the fact that this is from Fox News Insider.

At any rate, Lt. Col. Schaffer is yet another person giving an opinion.

Again I will ask, where is the evidence?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: rickymouse
I saw this on Yahoo today, it is interesting and this official is not afraid to say what happened. He states clearly that what happened overall is illegal. www.yahoo.com...

Wonder why Yahoo tries to conceal the fact that this is from Fox News Insider.

At any rate, Lt. Col. Schaffer is yet another person giving an opinion.

Again I will ask, where is the evidence?

The opinion of someone who actually worked in intelligence is way better than your opinion I feel. You have no real proof or crudentials to say that this guys opinion is unfounded. I would trust this guy more than you. Not everything on Fox is bs.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Daily Intelligence Briefing. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance. It's pretty self explanatory and part of FISA.

a reply to: rickymouse

Ad hominem attacks on the source a common for many people on the left.

Bob woodward was on fox news too, I guess everything he said was BS as well, to gryphon.