Trump transition members were under surveillance

[USN_Hokie]

I believe USN was the originator of this one. Just the idea of getting your hopes up and then having it come crashing down.

Must be nice living in your world. All of Obama's senior staff are lawyering up right now to be sure. Unmasking American citizens for political purposes, compiling it for reasons unrelated to the capture of the information, then reducing the classification and spreading it all over with the intention of impugning the character of the incoming administration.

[HooFighter]

Must be nice living in your world.

Or yours, where the blogger who invented Pizzagate is your primary source of information.

[HokieFanDC]

Wow...just,wow.

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan ... z4dHytPiCn

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

[awesome guy]

Wow...just,wow.

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan ... z4dHytPiCn

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Keep digging. He said his home was wiretapped. That's what happened.

[HooFighter]

[RiverguyVT]

This is no big deal. Just another Obama scandal, which, on its face, is bigger than Watergate and which the MoT will diligently cover up with white noise. How many of these have there been? Dozens?

[awesome guy]

This is great, like watching the birth of a new form of 9/11 truther.

[HokieFanDC]

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Keep digging. He said his home was wiretapped. That's what happened.

Good job.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

[awesome guy]

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Keep digging. He said his home was wiretapped. That's what happened.

Good job.
Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Hilarious.

[USN_Hokie]

Must be nice living in your world.

Or yours, where the blogger who invented Pizzagate is your primary source of information.

LOL. I'm not sure you will survive Donald for 8 years. You might still get to see that glass ceiling broken when Ivanka runs in 2024, lol. Maybe she can buy some of Hillary's unused glass ceiling confetti.

[RiverguyVT]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL.

[VisorBoy]

I believe USN was the originator of this one. Just the idea of getting your hopes up and then having it come crashing down.

Must be nice living in your world. All of Obama's senior staff are lawyering up right now to be sure. Unmasking American citizens for political purposes, compiling it for reasons unrelated to the capture of the information, then reducing the classification and spreading it all over with the intention of impugning the character of the incoming administration.

The bolded parts are speculative.

[VisorBoy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL.

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

[RiverguyVT]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL.

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

[awesome guy]

I believe USN was the originator of this one. Just the idea of getting your hopes up and then having it come crashing down.

Must be nice living in your world. All of Obama's senior staff are lawyering up right now to be sure. Unmasking American citizens for political purposes, compiling it for reasons unrelated to the capture of the information, then reducing the classification and spreading it all over with the intention of impugning the character of the incoming administration.

The bolded parts are speculative.

FTFY

[HokieJoe]

Wow...just,wow.

Former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser Susan Rice ordered U.S. spy agencies to produce “detailed spreadsheets” of legal phone calls involving Donald Trump and his aides when he was running for president, according to former U.S. Attorney Joseph diGenova.

“What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals,” diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

“The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with,” diGenova said. “In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/susan ... z4dHytPiCn

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.

[awesome guy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL. [emoji38]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

Yep. She had no reason to even know if Trump was caught in incidental data collection. That's why she went the other way and umasked what they had already collected on Trump. She was on a fishing expedition.

[VisorBoy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL.

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

[awesome guy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL. [emoji38]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

She had no reason to even know there was something to unmask in the first place. Total illegal fishing expedition.

[VisorBoy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL. [emoji38]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

She had no reason to even know there was something to unmask in the first place. Total illegal fishing expedition.

Just because you or I don't know the reason doesn't prove it was illegal. It was still approved by an intelligence agency.

[awesome guy]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL. [emoji38]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

She had no reason to even know there was something to unmask in the first place. Total illegal fishing expedition.

Just because you or I don't know the reason doesn't prove it was illegal. It was still approved by an intelligence agency.

There's no logical way for her to even know there was data collected in the first place. There was no reason as the FISA courts rejected 2 previous requests, so they issued a 3rd that was by Trump without naming him specifically. They were clearly spying on him for political reasons as the judge twice rejected their stated reasons.

[HokieFanDC]

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.

The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.

Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.

From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.

[awesome guy]

Hoof, Fatroll, and TrollingVT are about to have a bad week. DC too as his snarkiness on this has brought the required smackdown from the universe.

My snarkiness needs no smackdown. This is consistent with what I've been saying all along, which is that the collection of the data on the conversations is legal, but that the unmasking and dissemination is a problem that could be a big deal.

I've been saying that for weeks, and while my boy Nunes was a little late to the party, he finally got on board.

That's not what's happened. Playing to the middle has made you half wrong and Trump all right. You said he was lying when he tweeted and he's right.

I'll concede that it is possible that in Trump's mind, he may have equated umasking and disseminating this info to Obama having his phones tapped, but that doesn't mean he was right. What he said is still not what actually happened. No worries, I never expect you to admit something Trump said was wrong. You still think 3 million illegal aliens voted for Hillary.

Just drop this HFDC. It's making you look silly. They surveilled Trump for political purposes. That's the bottom line. They can hide behind sophistry, but anyone with a brain knows it's lawyer bullshit.

The "bottom line" is that there are correct and incorrect ways to describe things. Trump has a history of being loose with the things he says, including fabricating complete crap. And WADR, the ppl who defend everything he says, all the time, are the ones that look silly, they just ignore all the crap he makes up. So, when he continues to be loose with the things he says, no, I'm not going to drop it.

Here's a simple example for you. A judge signs an order to put a drug dealer under surveillance. That means someone is going to be watching what the drug dealer does on a regular basis. That drug dealer is going to have interactions with lots of other people. Let's say the drug dealer happens to purchase a watch from you on Craigslist. You meet him, give him a package with the watch in it, and he gives you money. You weren't being surveilled, but the police are certainly going to want to know what you're interaction was, and will probably stop you, ask questions, and maybe bring you in for questioning. You did nothing wrong, you didn't get surveilled, but the surveillance of the bad dude, got you caught up in it.

From what is being said now, there is almost no doubt that someone used data that was incidental collection on Trump's ppl, for political purposes (or tried to). But, that doesn't mean, after the fact, that what Trump said was factually correct. Even the Trump folks walked it back once, and then tried to say it came from the Brits, which was not true at all.

The news already refutes you as the Obama administration made 3 attempts to spy on Trump. You're saying Obama accidentally spied on the person he twice was denied access only to get a 3rd attempt approved for someone else. That's not incidental, that's them getting what they were after all along. You look silly and stubborn as 80.

[RiverguyVT]

Susan Rice made a statement that essentially says, "Yes, but..."

She did it....but...not for political ends. LOL. [emoji38]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

She had no reason to even know there was something to unmask in the first place. Total illegal fishing expedition.

Just because you or I don't know the reason doesn't prove it was illegal. It was still approved by an intelligence agency.

And Nixon just wanted Gordon Liddy to find out what the housekeepers were talking about. That DNC people were bugged was just happenstance coincidence. (good grief, Visor... don't sell your soul like this)

[awesome guy]

That's the whole point. Unmasking isn't illegal by default.

2 weeks ago she said it wasn't her that unmasked. Now she did. 2 weeks ago, she hadn't heard of this. 2 weeks ago, she herself said it would have been illegal.

And yes, it is illegal
And yes, it was 1000% political.

It's not illegal. That's easily provable.

Whether it was political is speculation. I'm not saying you're wrong on that (or right). That should be the focus of the investigation. It's difficult to prove intent, though, so I don't think this will amount to much.

She had no reason to even know there was something to unmask in the first place. Total illegal fishing expedition.

Just because you or I don't know the reason doesn't prove it was illegal. It was still approved by an intelligence agency.

And Nixon just wanted Gordon Liddy to find out what the housekeepers were talking about. That DNC people were bugged was just happenstance coincidence. (good grief, Visor... don't sell your soul like this)

The good news is they're running out of inertia to spin. The lies are being exposed and Obama is looking like a thuggish dictator from a banana republic.