Ex-Secret Service agent: Media missing 1 huge wiretap point

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SecondTierSuburbsGuy

If Obama is Guilty he needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump lodged libelous accusations he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

Good luck on Obama proving it's untrue. Something tells me Obama would rather sleeping dogs lie.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

They have proof.
And Obama declassified a lot of it so it will certainly be presented during the hearings beginning in a few days.

If they have proof why did Clapper just say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing? Same as every one else has said.

One way #45 can prove his innocence with the whole Russian deal, show his taxes, if he did that and nothing connected him to Russia he could shut everyone up.but he won't release them because it will show he's in deep with the russians.period.He made this wiretap claim to take heat off of the Russian situation.
He's a criminal point blank.

originally posted by: KINGOFPAIN
One way #45 can prove his innocence with the whole Russian deal, show his taxes, if he did that and nothing connected him to Russia he could shut everyone up.but he won't release them because it will show he's in deep with the russians.period.He made this wiretap claim to take heat off of the Russian situation.
He's a criminal point blank.

They are shown. You think he is hiding them from the IRS? the government has his tax returns. Comments like this are so crazy.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Good luck on Obama proving it's untrue. Something tells me Obama would rather sleeping dogs lie.

If only there was someone of authority that can deny that Obama ordered phone surveillance.

If they have proof why did Clapper just say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing? Same as every one else has said

Hmm... but didn't Clapper in that same interview state that Obama didn't order phone surveillance?

So is Clapper telling the truth or is he only telling the truth on one matter in your opinion?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Good luck on Obama proving it's untrue. Something tells me Obama would rather sleeping dogs lie.

If only there was someone of authority that can deny that Obama ordered phone surveillance.

If they have proof why did Clapper just say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing? Same as every one else has said

Hmm... but didn't Clapper in that same interview state that Obama didn't order phone surveillance?

So is Clapper telling the truth or is he only telling the truth on one matter in your opinion?

He is telling the truth when it helps him. He has no reason to protect trump, every reason to lie to protect Obama.

Clapper said they NEVER did it ... which is a proven lie we know Obama had those 20 journalists sped on. Clapper also said there was never any warrant for Trump .. which also appears to be a lie since it was verified back in January that there was.

So in short ... clapper will lie when it suits him, not me. Can you think of any reason Clapper would lie to protect Trump?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So basically you believe what you want to believe from those you quote. Do you not find that you are being hypocritical to use a source as "eveidence" to defend trump and at the same time dismissing that same source when it also clears Obama? Because I find it very hypocritical.

BTW when did trump towers server become Trump was it hs personal server even? There was never a warrant for Trump and that is true unless you can prove otherwise. Have you ever considered that there were other people in that tower could be under suspicion?

“I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, or [him] as a candidate, or against his campaign.”

So in short unless you are saying Trump is all of trump tower including every server then I don't see how you came to your conclusion.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No I look for motive to lie. He has motive to lie in favor of Obama. He has no motive to lie in favor of Trump.

Two scenarios.
Clapper lies to protect himself and Obama.
Clapper lies to protect trump.

which of those two is more likely?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Motive to lie huh.

Your belief in that has lead you to believe trumps twitterburst is real even without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

Since this has wandered to belief I will tell you mine. I think Trump read that Breitbart article based off of Levins radio show and lost it then proceeded to send out 4 tweets accusing Obama of a felony.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No, I read the articles back in January that said it was verified Trump Towers was tapped.

I like how you asked why I think he is only lying sometimes, and when I answer you, you skirt the answer.

Motive. That's why he sometimes lies.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, I read the articles back in January that said it was verified Trump Towers was tapped.

That is a hell of a lot different than stating the president tapped my phones. If trump is basing his claim off of what has been public knowledge as you stated at least since january then he is lying.

Motive. Unless you assume there was a wiretap of his phones and it was done illegally. Not the public knowledge of the fisa then there is no motive. In other words it is all your belief. Not based on facts.

Obviously there needs to be an investigation since trump hasnt presented any evidence and at the end of it.

If Obama is Guilty he needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump lodged libelous accusations he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

That is a hell of a lot different than stating the president tapped my phones. If trump is basing his claim off of what has been public knowledge as you stated at least since january then he is lying.

I don't know what you are talking about. That has literally nothing to do with what I said. I said Clapper has motive to lie to protect Obama, and hurt Trump. He has no motive to lie to help Trump. We already know Obama had 20 journalists tapped. yet they lie and say he never has done anything like this.

Motive. Unless you assume there was a wiretap of his phones and it was done illegally. Not the public knowledge of the fisa then there is no motive. In other words it is all your belief. Not based on facts.

Clapper is saying there was no FISA, no warrant, never happened. So you admit it's public knowledge it did happen .. he says it didn't .. but he's not lying?

Obviously there needs to be an investigation since trump hasnt presented any evidence and at the end of it.

If Obama is Guilty he needs to prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump lodged libelous accusations he needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. An example must be made.

If Trump intentionally liked to hurt Obama I agree.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So basically you believe what you want to believe from those you quote. Do you not find that you are being hypocritical to use a source as "eveidence" to defend trump and at the same time dismissing that same source when it also clears Obama? Because I find it very hypocritical.

BTW when did trump towers server become Trump was it hs personal server even? There was never a warrant for Trump and that is true unless you can prove otherwise. Have you ever considered that there were other people in that tower could be under suspicion?

“I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, or [him] as a candidate, or against his campaign.”

So in short unless you are saying Trump is all of trump tower including every server then I don't see how you came to your conclusion.

My feeling on this is it is all about semantics. They probably didn't "officially" target Trump with a wiretap but used some other reason in order to get the wiretaps in place. In this scenario Clapper can deny the claim that there was wiretap activity mounted against Trump and when it comes out that they did have surveillance of Trump he can come back and say but those wiretaps were for person X not Trump. Just my opinion but it kinda makes sense to me.

a reply to: Gargamel

I think he tried to be tricky with words and ended up lying ...

When Todd asked him whether he could confirm or deny if a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Act) order for this existed, Clapper declared, "I can deny it."

Asked again whether there was a FISA Court order to monitor Trump Tower, Clapper said, "Not to my knowledge."

Clapper said that if any wiretap like that occurred, he would "certainly hope" that he would be aware of it.

The FISA warrant for Trump Tower is public knowledge.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

For a libel suit intent doesn't need to be proven. I think you mean "actual malice' which applies to politicians.

"Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.

I am not sure what if any other regulations he might fall under like the house and ethics, but whatever they may be if it is found that his accusation was false then he should bear the full brunt of the consequences especially after pushing for an investigation without presenting a shred of evidence beforehand to support his claim.

I think it may be possible that the commission readily agreed to his push for an investigation in order to be able to charge him afterwards. That is just my opinion.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

For a libel suit intent doesn't need to be proven. I think you mean "actual malice' which applies to politicians.

No, I meant what I said. Nothing will happen either way. But if he intentionally lied there SHOULD be consequences.

Obama I think has too many skeletons in that closet to do anything.

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So basically you believe what you want to believe from those you quote. Do you not find that you are being hypocritical to use a source as "eveidence" to defend trump and at the same time dismissing that same source when it also clears Obama? Because I find it very hypocritical.

BTW when did trump towers server become Trump was it hs personal server even? There was never a warrant for Trump and that is true unless you can prove otherwise. Have you ever considered that there were other people in that tower could be under suspicion?

“I will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that I oversaw as DNI, there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, or [him] as a candidate, or against his campaign.”

So in short unless you are saying Trump is all of trump tower including every server then I don't see how you came to your conclusion.

My feeling on this is it is all about semantics. They probably didn't "officially" target Trump with a wiretap but used some other reason in order to get the wiretaps in place. In this scenario Clapper can deny the claim that there was wiretap activity mounted against Trump and when it comes out that they did have surveillance of Trump he can come back and say but those wiretaps were for person X not Trump. Just my opinion but it kinda makes sense to me.

I would be surprised if they didn't monitor others. Such as his daughter who is friends with Putins girlfriend or those that are part of his businesses that have ties to Russia.

a reply to: Grimpachi

That's what I was thinking. So many loopholes, so many grey areas. It would be nice to see proper justice done but I doubt we will see anyone in this whole ridiculous situation be held to account.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I referenced a legal site that explained it was "actual malice" that matters. "Intent" doesn't matter.

how would the media know that to report it?

little logic here please...