Mainecat Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Another lie by Cheetolini........every day another one. Key senators say they have no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped Source: The Washington Post By Karoun Demirjian March 16 at 2:00 PM The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee joined the chorus of lawmakers stating they are not aware of any current evidence supporting President Trump’s claim that his campaign headquarters were wiretapped during the presidential election. Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday released a joint statement with the ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), stating that they have not seen data supporting Trump’s claim. “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,” they said. Burr and Warner are leading the Senate investigation into Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 elections to aid Trump. They also examining alleged ties between Trump aides and Russian officials. They were joined last week and again on Wednesday by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) — leading a similar investigation in the House — who also stated that he has not seen evidence to support the president’s complaint that his offices were wiretapped during the campaign. Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/16/key-senators-say-they-have-no-evidence-that-trump-tower-was-wiretapped/?utm_term=.55cd2e37057b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bexclusive&wpmk=1 Last night.... https://mediamatters.org/video/2017/03/15/fox-donald-trump-cites-fox-anchor-bret-baier-justify-his-wiretapping-conspiracy/215701 TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): On March 4th, 6:45 in the morning, you are down in Florida, and you tweet "The former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me at Trump Tower during the last election." How did you find out? You said "I just found out," how did you learn that? DONALD TRUMP: I had been reading about things. I read in -- I think it was January 20th, a New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article, I think they used that exact term. I read other things. I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous, where he was talking about certain, very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping. I said "Wait a minute, there's a lot of wiretapping being talked about." I have been seeing a lot of things -- now, for the most part, for the most part I'm not going to discuss it because we have it before the committee, and we will be submitting things before the committee very soon that have not been submitted as of yet. But, it's potentially a very serious situation. [...] CARLSON: Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don't you devalue your words when you can't provide evidence? TRUMP: Because -- well, because The New York Times wrote about it. You know, not that I respect the New York Times, I call it the failing New York Times, but they did write on January 20th, using the word "wiretap." Other people have come out with -- CARLSON: Right, but you are the president. You have the ability to gather all the evidence you want. TRUMP: I do, I do, but I think that frankly, we have a lot right now, and I think if you watch -- if you watched the Bret Baier and what he was saying, and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word wiretap, you would feel very confident that you could mention the name. He mentioned it, and other people mentioned it, but if you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping -- and don't forget, when I say "wiretap," those words were in quotes. That really covers -- because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff, but that really covers surveillance and many other things, and nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, that's a very important thing. But wiretap covers a lot of different things, I think you are going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. NOW NOTE HOW FOX NEWS TREATS TRUMP LIKE A FAVORITE CHILD. The dont ask him why mad such a slanderous lie.....they let him off. He has zero evidence Obama had him under surveillance.....zero. Now a bipartisan investigation committee says they have zero information Obama had his "wires tapped" They guy should be sued and impeached. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 FAKENEWSMAINECUNT strikes again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 16, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Another lie by Cheetolini........every day another one. Key senators say they have no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped Source: The Washington Post By Karoun Demirjian March 16 at 2:00 PM The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee joined the chorus of lawmakers stating they are not aware of any current evidence supporting President Trump’s claim that his campaign headquarters were wiretapped during the presidential election. Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) on Thursday released a joint statement with the ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), stating that they have not seen data supporting Trump’s claim. “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,” they said. Burr and Warner are leading the Senate investigation into Russia’s suspected interference in the 2016 elections to aid Trump. They also examining alleged ties between Trump aides and Russian officials. They were joined last week and again on Wednesday by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) — leading a similar investigation in the House — who also stated that he has not seen evidence to support the president’s complaint that his offices were wiretapped during the campaign. Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/16/key-senators-say-they-have-no-evidence-that-trump-tower-was-wiretapped/?utm_term=.55cd2e37057b&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bexclusive&wpmk=1 Last night.... https://mediamatters.org/video/2017/03/15/fox-donald-trump-cites-fox-anchor-bret-baier-justify-his-wiretapping-conspiracy/215701 TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): On March 4th, 6:45 in the morning, you are down in Florida, and you tweet "The former administration wiretapped me, surveilled me at Trump Tower during the last election." How did you find out? You said "I just found out," how did you learn that? DONALD TRUMP: I had been reading about things. I read in -- I think it was January 20th, a New York Times article where they were talking about wiretapping. There was an article, I think they used that exact term. I read other things. I watched your friend Bret Baier the day previous, where he was talking about certain, very complex sets of things happening, and wiretapping. I said "Wait a minute, there's a lot of wiretapping being talked about." I have been seeing a lot of things -- now, for the most part, for the most part I'm not going to discuss it because we have it before the committee, and we will be submitting things before the committee very soon that have not been submitted as of yet. But, it's potentially a very serious situation. [...] CARLSON: Why not wait to tweet about it until you can prove it? Don't you devalue your words when you can't provide evidence? TRUMP: Because -- well, because The New York Times wrote about it. You know, not that I respect the New York Times, I call it the failing New York Times, but they did write on January 20th, using the word "wiretap." Other people have come out with -- CARLSON: Right, but you are the president. You have the ability to gather all the evidence you want. TRUMP: I do, I do, but I think that frankly, we have a lot right now, and I think if you watch -- if you watched the Bret Baier and what he was saying, and what he was talking about and how he mentioned the word wiretap, you would feel very confident that you could mention the name. He mentioned it, and other people mentioned it, but if you take a look at some of the things written about wiretapping and eavesdropping -- and don't forget, when I say "wiretap," those words were in quotes. That really covers -- because wiretapping is pretty old-fashioned stuff, but that really covers surveillance and many other things, and nobody ever talks about the fact that it was in quotes, that's a very important thing. But wiretap covers a lot of different things, I think you are going to find some very interesting items coming to the forefront over the next two weeks. NOW NOTE HOW FOX NEWS TREATS TRUMP LIKE A FAVORITE CHILD. The dont ask him why mad such a slanderous lie.....they let him off. He has zero evidence Obama had him under surveillance.....zero. Now a bipartisan investigation committee says they have zero information Obama had his "wires tapped" They guy should be sued and impeached. Whats hilarious is you guys believe the IC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Whats hilarious is you guys believe the IC. Or the Washington post 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted March 16, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) The New York Times ran a front page article entitled "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides" in its January 20th edition: The January 20th New York Times story reports that "American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort..." The report goes on to say that "intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House." Right from the NYTimes article. Now why would this information be provided to the WH if it didn't originate with the WH? If the WH was not directing the wiretapping wouldn't it say "shared with the WH?" Edited March 16, 2017 by Highmark 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oleroule Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Russians did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 there was no surveillance no tapping nothing . they just found communications with Russian bankers on a privet server in trump tower how again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Why is Trump outraged by this wire tapping? He is advocating for warrantless surveillance of every american but crying about being surveilled himself? Fuck Trump 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, f7ben said: Why is Trump outraged by this wire tapping? He is advocating for warrantless surveillance of every american but crying about being surveilled himself? Fuck Trump I'd like to argue by stating that this surveillance is for criminal activity. Then I wonder how so, soooo many people in publicly elected office in government have become multi-millionaires several times over. Hmmmm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I'd like to argue by stating that this surveillance is for criminal activity. Then I wonder how so, soooo many people in publicly elected office in government have become multi-millionaires several times over. Hmmmm..... those in power want our rights eradicated .....plain and simple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, f7ben said: those in power want our rights eradicated .....plain and simple Truth is, like all governments, they have the ability to eradicate any individuals rights anytime they want to with multiple reasons of justification. It is what it is. Gotta play smart out there. That's why it cracks me up when people peek their head up and "act a fool" for seemingly no reason other than to try and look cool or "unafraid". Just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Zambroski said: Truth is, like all governments, they have the ability to eradicate any individuals rights anytime they want to with multiple reasons of justification. It is what it is. Gotta play smart out there. That's why it cracks me up when people peek their head up and "act a fool" for seemingly no reason other than to try and look cool or "unafraid". Just dumb. they don't have that ability unless we give it to them......if we all stop supporting pieces of shit on both sides of the isle then they wouldnt be able to do shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, f7ben said: they don't have that ability unless we give it to them......if we all stop supporting pieces of shit on both sides of the isle then they wouldnt be able to do shit. That's why our second amendment is UBER FUCKING IMPORTANT. And poses the largest threat to any of our government powers. That's also why it was put in our Constitution. Look to whichever party that wants to limit and/or "edit" or do away with that right and you'll find the party that poses the biggest threat to our freedom and liberties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Zambroski said: That's why our second amendment is UBER FUCKING IMPORTANT. And poses the largest threat to any of our government powers. That's also why it was put in our Constitution. Look to whichever party that wants to limit and/or "edit" or do away with that right and you'll find the party that poses the biggest threat to our freedom and liberties. the 4th is more important than the 2nd .....lets face it. Our arms are useless against the government.....ESPECIALLY if they know who has the arms and is planning to use them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, f7ben said: the 4th is more important than the 2nd .....lets face it. Our arms are useless against the government.....ESPECIALLY if they know who has the arms and is planning to use them. I disagree. One is needed to support and defend the other. Really, all others. And even of the government knows you have them or "had" them at one time. There is very little they can do as a whole to prevent their ousting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 26 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I'd like to argue by stating that this surveillance is for criminal activity. Then I wonder how so, soooo many people in publicly elected office in government have become multi-millionaires several times over. Hmmmm..... for 1 they are the only people allowed to partake in insider trading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I disagree. One is needed to support and defend the other. Really, all others. And even of the government knows you have them or "had" them at one time. There is very little they can do as a whole to prevent their ousting. it would be pretty fucking tough to stage an insurgency when they can employ all manner of surveillance on law biding citizens without restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 1 minute ago, f7ben said: it would be pretty fucking tough to stage an insurgency when they can employ all manner of surveillance on law biding citizens without restriction. Law enforcement and military won't back our government against the citizens. Remember, at this breaking point a full system break down happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, Zambroski said: Law enforcement and military won't back our government against the citizens. Remember, at this breaking point a full system break down happens. of course they would ......LEO's and Military are comprised of 99% bootlicking morons 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, f7ben said: of course they would ......LEO's and Military are comprised of 99% bootlicking morons No they aren't. Trust me. I'm a doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, Zambroski said: No they aren't. Trust me. I'm a doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ez ryder Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, f7ben said: of course they would ......LEO's and Military are comprised of 99% bootlicking morons no fucking way . most join for love of country not love of government . I know no one past or present who would turn on there own because a politician said so. prob not even more than a small hand full of politically in trenched generals would play that game . I sort of hope I am alive to see the day the fed gives it a try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f7ben Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just now, Ez ryder said: no fucking way . most join for love of country not love of government . I know no one past or present who would turn on there own because a politician said so. prob not even more than a small hand full of politically in trenched generals would play that game . I sort of hope I am alive to see the day the fed gives it a try They could easily do it .......see the jack boot faggots going door to door confiscating guns during Katrina or imposing martial law after a little pressure cooker bomb in Boston Did the bootlicking cops stop for one second and think "hey , I am violating someones constitutional rights" ..... of course not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 53 minutes ago, f7ben said: They could easily do it .......see the jack boot faggots going door to door confiscating guns during Katrina or imposing martial law after a little pressure cooker bomb in Boston Did the bootlicking cops stop for one second and think "hey , I am violating someones constitutional rights" ..... of course not Isolated incidents in areas aren't going to get it done. Hell, remember when police and sheriff departments blatantly refused to uphold some horseshit idea Obama had concerning guns? And that was little shit. Also...I wonder why that dipshit fired away so many military personnel under him....hmmmmm. Bottom line, civil servants, LE and military won't be at the Feds disposal should it come to a full on shit show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.