[Dogzilla]

All you nasty, stupid conservatards are as stupid as a pile of steaming dogshit!

"The White House is attempting to back up Donald Trump’s crazy accusation of former President Barack Obama of wiretapping Trump Tower, and Kellyanne Conway tried to take a stab at it.

On a Sunday interview at her home, Conway suggested that the “surveillance” of the Trump Tower is even broader than just wiretapping.

“What I can say is there are many ways to surveil each other,” Conway said. “You can surveil someone through their phones, certainly through their television sets — any number of ways.”

Conway also added that people can be monitored by “microwaves that turn into cameras,” saying that “We know this is a fact of modern life.”

Conway, like Trump, did not give any evidence to back up this claim. However, her comments are significant because the House Intelligence Committee has given the White House by Monday to give any evidence of the alleged wiretapping."

[johnforbes]

Actually, there's overwhelming evidence that Trump was wiretapped.

The NY Times stated precisely that on 3 or 4 occasions, including a front page above the fold story on 1/20/17 with the headline:

"WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES"

Also, there was a general climate of politicizing, as we know from the IRS being used to target political foes (something Nixon only dreamed of doing).

The Guardian (a Left Wing source) indicated that a FISA warrant was sought after Trump got the nomination. That was turned down.

A FISA and a general warrant were obtained in October.

Now one may say the general one was sorta benign in that it only tapped Trump's server outside the Tower, and was not really aimed at him so much as the general question of whether Russia was seeking to influence candidates.

Still, what the Obama Administration clearly did was far worse than what Nixon did.

[Clownkicker]

"Actually, there's overwhelming evidence that Trump was wiretapped."-johnfibs

And yet no one in the Trump Administration has been able to produce a shred of evidence that he was.
How could anyone believe that a complete lack of evidence is somehow "overwhelming evidence"?


"The NY Times stated precisely that on 3 or 4 occasions, including a front page above the fold story on 1/20/17 with the headline: "WIRETAPPED DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES""-johnfibs

You can't keep telling this lie, johnny.
"Trump" and "TRUMP AIDES" are not the same thing. They are not interchangeable terms in English.
If Flynn was tapped, it does not prove Trump was tapped.
Even someone as partisan and hypocritical as you should be able to admit this fact.
And so far you haven't produced a second or third or fourth time the NYTimes supposedly said "precisely" that Trump was tapped.
It never happened. It's just made up stupid shit that you keep gargling with.


"The Guardian (a Left Wing source) indicated that a FISA warrant was sought after Trump got the nomination. That was turned down."-johnforbes

There are three things idiotic about this statement, johnny. The first is that The Guardian has offered no more evidence of this than you or Trump has.
Second, a warrant that was allegedly turned down is not evidence that a warrant was issued, you imbecile.
And third, your claim is that the warrant application was to tap Trump, but supposedly it was turned down precisely because it targeted Trump. Again, that a warrant is turned down because it targeted Trump is not evidence that a warrant was issued to target Trump.


"A FISA and a general warrant were obtained in October."-johnforbes

And someday no doubt you and Trump are going to prove these alleged warrants to tap Trump exists? :lol:
If such warrants existed, Trump would have smugly produced them a week ago.
You pretend to be able to understand "non-denial denials" but seem to be completely incapable of recognizing the repeated childish evasions of reporters' questions with only innuendo by Trump, Spicer, and Conway.
But then, unsupported innuendo is always enough for you to believe something to be true.

"Still, what the Obama Administration clearly did was far worse than what Nixon did."johnfibs

johnny, if such warrants existed, then any alleged tapping would be perfectly legal. Faulting someone for allegedly doing things legally and comparing that to the illegal things that Nixon did is really idiotic.

[RealJustme]

the House Intelligence Committee has given the White House by Monday to give any evidence of the alleged wiretapping

Or what? :lol: :lol: :lol:

1.JPG (62.33 KiB) Viewed 4918 times

[johnforbes]

Clown, come on.

Trying to distinguish Trump from his aides, that's ludicrous.

Just like Watergate, the goal was to gain inside political info.

Just like Watergate, it was abuse of power.

If it didn't occur, why did the NY Times discuss it ON ITS FRONT PAGE ABOVE THE FOLD ON INAUGURATION DAY.

The headline: "WIRETAPPING DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES"

[Clownkicker]

"Or what? :lol: :lol: :lol:"-RealTool

Or the Republican investigation into Obama allegedly tapping Trump's phones is put to bed and Trump will be shown to be a liar once again.

But I don't see why you find that so funny, Tool. It's serious.
Are you just used to his pathological lying already? :shock:

[Clownkicker]

"Trying to distinguish Trump from his aides, that's ludicrous."-johnfibs

It really quite easy, johnny. One is orange and the rest are not.


"Just like Watergate, the goal was to gain inside political info."-johnlops

But unlike Watergate, you are here alleging one was illegal (Nixon's) and the other legal.
And that makes all the difference, even if it did happen, which it didn't.


"If it didn't occur, why did the NY Times discuss it ON ITS FRONT PAGE ABOVE THE FOLD ON INAUGURATION DAY."-johnflubs

The NY Times DIDN'T discuss tapping of Trump's phones on the front page. You need to actually read the article before you comment ignorantly on it, johnny.

[sillydaddy]

Obama sent $400M to Iran, and in CASH to circumvent sanctions, as ransom for the release of four Americans..
and then lied about it saying it was money owed to Iran...
Proof he was willing to break the law...

So I wouldn't put it past him to order wiretaps on Trump and his campaign...warrants or no warrants...

More than once he said," Trump will not be President"....

And he also said on other occasion, the President know things others don't.....

Notice the Left completely ignores the NYTimes articles... this after the media made a big deal about
never reporting "fake" news...they only report the TRUTH and nothing but the truth....
Well then those articles say "wiretapping....." , they must be true!

[Clownkicker]

"Notice the Left completely ignores the NYTimes articles..."-sillydummy

He says this after I just addressed the articles twice in this thread alone, not to mention several other comments on other threads. :lol:


"...and then lied about it saying it was money owed to Iran..."-sillydummy

It WAS money owed to Iran, dummy. Nobody but you even disputes that fact.


"Proof he was willing to break the law..."-sillydummy

Yes, that's exactly what nobody, including Trump, can produce; proof that Obama was willing to break the law.
Even johnforbes is here insisting Obama tapped the phones legally with a FISA warrant.
You better take it up with johnny, sillydummy. He apparently thinks you're a liar and a moron.

[johnforbes]

Well, the problem is that I did read the NY Times articles and the Guardian ones too.

First of all, everybody knows the constant nature of wiretapping.

We all know that there is no phone/computer privacy -- not from Big Brother.

Secondly, we know why the Left-leaning NY Times reported repeatedly on the "wiretapping" (their word) of Trump aides.

It was because the Times wanted to lets its readers know of the intel agency concern over Trump -- to suggest its readers should vote for safe Hillary.

Nobody -- not one single person here, or anywhere -- has the slightest doubt Trump was wiretapped.

We all know that happened even if we didn't read about it in Left-leaning sources such as the NY Times.

Also, we live in a world of ***, and the Guardian talked to the people who informed them about the various warrants and so did the Times.

I disagree with the leftist spin of the Times, but they do have their sources and we all know it.

Who listened in on Flynn's calls?

Who furnished trancripts of them to the Washington Post?

If Trump aides were not wiretapped, where did the transcripts come from?

[sillydaddy]

As I said the Left ignores the NYTimes articles......Clown only mentions them to call them lies...but then
that would make them fake news and the media says, they don't do that :o ..

As for the $400Million Obama went through a lot of trouble to pay that debt in cash..when he could
have easily ordered a transfer of the funds to one of the Iranian accounts.... :o

It was ransom.....

[RealJustme]

Monday has passed and nothing happened. Nos libtards are saying Trump had until March 20th or else and this time it's a real redline. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Clownkicker]

"As I said the Left ignores the NYTimes articles......Clown only mentions them to call them lies."-sillydummy

No, dimwit, I never said any such thing. Where do you clowns get that sort of stupid shit?

I merely pointed out that the articles (which are probably accurate) don't say what johnforbes is pretending they say. So far he hasn't been able to produce a single quotation from the NY Times that supports his claim that the NY Times repeatedly said Trump was tapped.

If johnny can't prove they said it, then they didn't say it. Every word the Times has published is available for johnforbes to support his claims, but he can't do it.
That makes it made up stupid shit.

[elklindo69]

Microwave ovens with cameras?

So they want to surveil Trump heating up pop tarts?

LMFAO!!!

:lol:

[johnforbes]

Actually, I have read the articles, and they certainly support the assertion that Barry was one wiretapping dude.

He wiretapped members of his own party (Kucinich), foreign leaders (Israel, Italy, Germany, France, and those are only the ones we know of), journalists (Rosen, Atkisson, etc).

Given all the reporting by liberal journalists, it is safe to assume Barry and his minions did get the two October warrants.

Now any good liberal should NOT WANT a sitting president to wiretap a candidate from the other party.

That was bad of Nixoon to want to do that, and bad of Barry to actually do it.

[Clownkicker]

"Actually, I have read the articles, and they certainly support the assertion that Barry was one wiretapping dude."-johnfoibles

That's nothing more than a variation of the "non-denial denial" johnny.
Translated into clear English it is the same as saying "You're right. I couldn't find a quotation in the NY Times claiming Trump was wiretapped."
So just say it, fer cripes sake. You'll breathe a sigh of relief when you no longer have to constantly obfuscate like Spicer at a news conference.


"That was bad of Nixoon to want to do that, and bad of Barry to actually do it."-johnifbs

What Nixon did was illegal, johnny. You are claiming that what Obama allegedly did was legal.
You went to law school. Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "illegal" ?
One is bad and the other is okay, not necessarily in that order. Think about it.

I'm sure they covered all that sometime early in 1L.

[johnforbes]

Headline 1/20/17, NY Times:

"WIRETAPPING DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES"

In the Times, BBC, Guardian, and other Left-leaning outlets, the word "wiretapping" was very consistently used.

Now, in a "sting ray" age, what does it mean?

Certainly it would apply to tapping a server, which was done in October to Trump?

Certainly it would apply to the "sting ray" technology too.

[Dogzilla]

Is that poptart creme drooling down your chin, JJ?

[RealJustme]

It's Tuesday and still nothing??? Libtards drew another red line with no meaning.

[Grog]

Sounds like the Republicans in congress are giving Team Donnie another week to forward them the link to Breitbart.com. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Headline 1/20/17, NY Times:

"WIRETAPPING DATA USED IN INQUIRY OF TRUMP AIDES"

In the Times, BBC, Guardian, and other Left-leaning outlets, the word "wiretapping" was very consistently used.

Now, in a "sting ray" age, what does it mean?

Certainly it would apply to tapping a server, which was done in October to Trump?

Certainly it would apply to the "sting ray" technology too.

[Clownkicker]

"Actually, there's overwhelming evidence that Trump was wiretapped."-johnfibs

"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."-statement by Republican Chairman Richard Burr and Senator Mark Warner, the committee's Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee


Who is more credible on this, johnforbes or the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee?

[Clownkicker]

"Or what? :lol: :lol: :lol:"-RealTool

Incidentally, RealTool, the Senate Intelligence Committee has given you the answer to your smug idiotic question.

Can we just all agree that Trump is a pathological liar?
It would save us a lot of unpleasantness and the regular embarrassment and humiliation of all the Trump supporters here.

[johnforbes]

It would be a delightful and wonderful thing to be completely wrong about Trump being wiretapped.

But this is prelim, and there remains overwhelming evidence he was.

Who wiretapped Hollande, Merkel, Bibi, Italy, etc except the Obama Admin?

Why are there reports of 2 warrants in October, one FISA and one general?

Why did the NY Times report multiple times on "wiretapping"?

[johnforbes]

Note also they are carefully talking about the Tower when we now know the server was outside it.

[elklindo69]

Maybe "they" tapped into the elevator cameras in Trump's building. Who knows what kind of shenanigans go on when the doors close!

:lol: :mrgreen: :lol:

[johnforbes]

I used to have a job as an elevator operator.

But, you know, the job had its ups and downs.