Trump needs to release what evidence he had to back up his wiretapping claim...
-
msispoke... there doesn't have to be evidence that it happened, when the
British and whoever in the American intel kept asking for FISA warrants...
and were finally given one.....
and surveillance would have been discontinued and any traces would be swept away.
Don't you watch any of the spy movies ? Come ON, Sad.
msispoke... there doesn't have to be evidence that it happened, when the
British and whoever in the American intel kept asking for FISA warrants...
and were finally given one.....
and surveillance would have been discontinued and any traces would be swept away.
Don't you watch any of the spy movies ? Come ON, Sad.
about those british spying on us
White House apologizes to British government over spying claims http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/gchq-trump-wiretap-denial/index.html -
I would say the same thing. All of a sudden, liberals engage in worse nitpiddly bickering over
words than "it depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is"
Surveillance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about observing people's actions and communications. For the article about monitoring the spread of diseases, see disease surveillance. For other uses, see Surveillance (disambiguation).
"Electronic surveillance" redirects here. For surveillance of electronic computer systems, see Computer surveillance.
A 'nest' of surveillance cameras
Surveillance (/sərˈveɪ.əns/ or /sərˈveɪləns/)[1] is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them.[2] This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras),[3] or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls); and it can include simple, no- or relatively low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception. The word surveillance comes from a French phrase for "watching over" (sur means "from above" and veiller means "to watch"), and is in contrast to more recent developments such as sousveillance.[4][5][6]
Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence gathering, the prevention of crime, the protection of a process, person, group or object, or the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes such as robbery and kidnapping, by businesses to gather intelligence, and by private investigators.
Surveillance is often a violation of privacy, and is opposed by various civil liberties groups and activists.[7][8] Liberal democracies have laws which restrict domestic government and private use of surveillance, usually limiting it to circumstances where public safety is at risk. Authoritarian government seldom have any domestic restrictions, and international espionage is common among all types of countries.I would say the same thing. All of a sudden, liberals engage in worse nitpiddly bickering over
words than "it depends on what the meaning of 'IS' is"
Surveillance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about observing people's actions and communications. For the article about monitoring the spread of diseases, see disease surveillance. For other uses, see Surveillance (disambiguation).
"Electronic surveillance" redirects here. For surveillance of electronic computer systems, see Computer surveillance.
A 'nest' of surveillance cameras
Surveillance (/sərˈveɪ.əns/ or /sərˈveɪləns/)[1] is the monitoring of the behavior, activities, or other changing information, usually of people for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting them.[2] This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment (such as closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras),[3] or interception of electronically transmitted information (such as Internet traffic or phone calls); and it can include simple, no- or relatively low-technology methods such as human intelligence agents and postal interception. The word surveillance comes from a French phrase for "watching over" (sur means "from above" and veiller means "to watch"), and is in contrast to more recent developments such as sousveillance.[4][5][6]
Surveillance is used by governments for intelligence gathering, the prevention of crime, the protection of a process, person, group or object, or the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes such as robbery and kidnapping, by businesses to gather intelligence, and by private investigators.
Surveillance is often a violation of privacy, and is opposed by various civil liberties groups and activists.[7][8] Liberal democracies have laws which restrict domestic government and private use of surveillance, usually limiting it to circumstances where public safety is at risk. Authoritarian government seldom have any domestic restrictions, and international espionage is common among all types of countries.
“Based on the information available to us, we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016," - Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Vice Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va, March 16, 2017.
-
x-British spy Christopher Steele
arlier, it was reported that the FBI had been considering paying Mr Steele to continue his research once the election was over and the Democrats withdrew funding. In the end, Mr Steele was so worried by what he had found that he ended up working on the dossier for free, as The Independent reported in January.******************************************
https://nationonenews.com/2017/03/08/cia-spyware-hack-hillary-frame-russia-blame-trump.html
********************************************Have a nice landing, jbloop
-
probably wasn't the British intel agency...
but WAS faked, to make it look like they did.
or, British ex-spy arranged it, while being paid by the dems
and Obamao's FBI........
to make it look like that.
Something IS going on.
-
Still no proof of wiretap?
-
probably wasn't the British intel agency...
but WAS faked, to make it look like they did.
or, British ex-spy arranged it, while being paid by the dems
and Obamao's FBI........
to make it look like that.
Something IS going on.
probably wasn't the British intel agency...
but WAS faked, to make it look like they did.
or, British ex-spy arranged it, while being paid by the dems
and Obamao's FBI........
to make it look like that.
Something IS going on.
If the evidence doesn't fit your false narrative, it goes into the waste basket.
-
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
-
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
no evidence is necessary, no one ever said it wasn't....they just want an investigation, reasonable enough as Republicans feel the same. So i expect the same from Trump. His statement was "definitive", not "i think obama tapped me" or theres evidence to possibly suggest it.....no he said "i just learned". Ok, give us what you learned. What's so fucking hard about this? If Obama was listening to ur employees at the microwave making hotpockets, tell us. Show me the evidence. And if there actually is something to this, Trump royally fucked up by shooting his mouth on twitter. He should have kept his twitter mouth shut while he had this investigated on the sly so that when he did come to the american people he actually had something to tell us. What have we been told since his tweet? Nothing except twatway and spicey parsing the word "wiretap".
-
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
When there is evidence of Russian involvement of the DNC hack, and there are claims of possible collusion plus key people who are or were a part of his campaign keep lying about meetings with Russians during the campaign, there is enough evidence to at least warrant a more in depth investigation(it doesn't mean collusion happened only that it warrants an investigation).
-
Of course no evidence is necessary for the Phantom claims of collusion with the Russians that the Democrats have filled the echo chamber with.
WSS
When there is evidence of Russian involvement of the DNC hack, and there are claims of possible collusion plus key people who are or were a part of his campaign keep lying about meetings with Russians during the campaign, there is enough evidence to at least warrant a more in depth investigation(it doesn't mean collusion happened only that it warrants an investigation).
When there is evidence of Russian involvement of the DNC hack, and there are claims of possible collusion plus key people who are or were a part of his campaign keep lying about meetings with Russians during the campaign, there is enough evidence to at least warrant a more in depth investigation(it doesn't mean collusion happened only that it warrants an investigation).
Well let's see who did it benefit? Oh yes the Democrats. Had who took more money from the Russians than the Hillary Clinton team? Nobody. So I would say there's as much or more chance at the DNC colluded in this affair. Right?
WSS
-
When there is evidence of Russian involvement of the DNC hack, and there are claims of possible collusion plus key people who are or were a part of his campaign keep lying about meetings with Russians during the campaign, there is enough evidence to at least warrant a more in depth investigation(it doesn't mean collusion happened only that it warrants an investigation).
Well let's see who did it benefit? Oh yes the Democrats. Had who took more money from the Russians than the Hillary Clinton team? Nobody. So I would say there's as much or more chance at the DNC colluded in this affair. Right?
WSS
Well let's see who did it benefit? Oh yes the Democrats. Had who took more money from the Russians than the Hillary Clinton team? Nobody. So I would say there's as much or more chance at the DNC colluded in this affair. Right?
WSS
How did it benefit the Democrats, if anything it hurt them going into the election, I would guess out of everyone involved Rex Tillerson and his former company Exxon had the most to gain or lose. As it was estimated Exxon lost hundreds of billions when US sanctioned Russia over Ukraine
-
Breaking news, he lied. Fox News admits they had no fucking proof. But wait for the rationalization.
-
stupid words. If he really believes they did/somebody did...then it isn't a lie.
If somebody did wiretap, and then swept their taps back out after the election....
it didn't happen to dems because the wiretaps were taken back out. How convenient.
We don't know. Sour grapes rot into fake news.
-
stupid words. If he really believes they did/somebody did...then it isn't a lie.
If somebody did wiretap, and then swept their taps back out after the election....
it didn't happen to dems because the wiretaps were taken back out. How convenient.
We don't know. Sour grapes rot into fake news.
stupid words. If he really believes they did/somebody did...then it isn't a lie.
If somebody did wiretap, and then swept their taps back out after the election....
it didn't happen to dems because the wiretaps were taken back out. How convenient.
We don't know. Sour grapes rot into fake news.
Just when I thought "gays can't get get married because science" couldn't be topped...
-
-
-
stupid words. If he really believes they did/somebody did...then it isn't a lie.
If somebody did wiretap, and then swept their taps back out after the election....
it didn't happen to dems because the wiretaps were taken back out. How convenient.
We don't know. Sour grapes rot into fake news.
stupid words. If he really believes they did/somebody did...then it isn't a lie.
I believe I am a rich NFL player with a 14" wanger.
-
Well let's see who did it benefit? Oh yes the Democrats. Had who took more money from the Russians than the Hillary Clinton team? Nobody. So I would say there's as much or more chance at the DNC colluded in this affair. Right?
WSS
How did it benefit the Democrats, if anything it hurt them going into the election, I would guess out of everyone involved Rex Tillerson and his former company Exxon had the most to gain or lose. As it was estimated Exxon lost hundreds of billions when US sanctioned Russia over Ukraine
How did it benefit the Democrats? Open your eyes turn on a TV open a newspaper listen to a radio. The entire new cycle is fake news about Russian Collision for no other purpose than to delegitimize the president.How did it benefit the Democrats, if anything it hurt them going into the election, I would guess out of everyone involved Rex Tillerson and his former company Exxon had the most to gain or lose. As it was estimated Exxon lost hundreds of billions when US sanctioned Russia over Ukraine
Two Russian spy on everybody all the time as we spy on everybody all the time.
Three DNC was (and is) dirty they just exposed it.
Four it wasn't even exposed bu the Russkies it it was your friends at the Washington Post NBC etc. Collusion.
And the Obama Administration knew about it but covered it up so his party wouldn't stink as badly as it did. They only mentioned it when they were positive your girl was a shoo-in.
Real problem is the actual leaks coming out of the intelligence community is, (unlike Russian spying which is to be expected), actually treason.
And Rex Tillerson has business that deals in oil. Which is an important product for consumers and sellers alike including got holy Russia but even more unsavory characters in the Middle East Africa China..... Hillary's Millions from the Russians tantamount only to bribes. She had no product to sell other than influence.
WSS
[Edit]
-
I believe I am a rich NFL player with a 14" wanger.
"A lie is a statement that the stating party believes to be false and that is made with the intention to deceive."
So, while it's obviously untrue, if you really believe it, it isn't a lie. If you actually don't believe it, yet you espouse it
as true...then..
it's a lie.
Let's say you are president. There is investigations into a few folks on your big team.
The investigators ask questions about stuff they have no way of knowing about...
unless someone who does know tells them.... or, the only explanation is that they wiretapped/listened in
on your phone conversation. So, you are justified in believe that "they" wiretapped you, even though
there is no concrete evidence. That isn't a lie.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login