Judge Napolitano: Obama used British spies for Trump wiretap caper

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: SBMcG

Can you imagine what one more Big Blow would mean to them? Can you imagine what it would mean if one of their sacred icons like Barack Hussein Obama or Bill Clinton's wife were indicted and tried?

At this point I'm guessing both sides have hardened their position and very few will capitulate. Just my opinion. The ability to reason is gone for most on either side.

Well, "reason" as an intellectual exercise in a political debate is one thing, but if the Obama Regime truly did engage a foreign spy agency to gather intel on a presidential candidate from the opposing party, that's quite another.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh great idea. Now North Korea is there too.

So let's just see if I get what you're saying. Basically the British are now the ones who are illegally tapping Trump for Obama now.

Why not just come right out and say what you're really trying to say. Which is it's everyone but Russia who's up to something. Regardless of how stupid that may sound that's what you want people to actually believe.

So dumb.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh great idea. Now North Korea is there too.

So let's just see if I get what you're saying. Basically the British are now the ones who are illegally tapping Trump for Obama now.

Why not just come right out and say what you're really trying to say. Which is it's everyone but Russia who's up to something. Regardless of how stupid that may sound that's what you want people to actually believe.

So dumb.

Yep. Almost sounds as ridiculous as claiming Russians are climbing out from everyones bed and Hillary would have won the election had Trump and the Russians not brokered a secret deal to steal it from her.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh great idea. Now North Korea is there too.

So let's just see if I get what you're saying. Basically the British are now the ones who are illegally tapping Trump for Obama now.

Why not just come right out and say what you're really trying to say. Which is it's everyone but Russia who's up to something. Regardless of how stupid that may sound that's what you want people to actually believe.

So dumb.

Oddly, it's more believable than the Russians helping interfere in elections so Trump would win....

I have posted and pointed to many direct links with Clinton and Russia that have surmounted to plenty of money and transactions made...still have yet to see a single one with Trump.

But yeah....unbelievable that someone in a political position of power would ever use such to do anything like ask an ally for some info...

Not this guy!

originally posted by: manuelram16
Obamagate keeps growing and growing and ........

Has there been any solid, verifiable evidence presented that proves there has been any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
I don't think you can call this situation 'anything-gate' just yet. Proof is required.

However, if it does turn out to be true, may I be the first to say to all Americans here: sorry about that chaps, exceptionally bad form on our part.

a reply to: Grambler

Yeah. Well since I'm not here claiming that it also doesn't matter does it.

You can go ahead and deflect to some other issue if you'd like, but it's not going to solve this one is it.

That deflection tactic is starting to wear thin now. It's stopped working for you. You're just going to have to stay focused from now on I guess. Good luck with that...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The same judge who's " inside sources" told him that they had the goods on Hillary and they were going to indict her any minute now? That judge Napolitano?
FOX news resident uninformed judiciary representative.

They did have the goods on Hillary and it was communicated very clearly that she broke the law. They, being Comey in terms of his recommendation and Lynch as the head of the DoJ, just decided not to indict.

originally posted by: Indrasweb

originally posted by: manuelram16
Obamagate keeps growing and growing and ........

Has there been any solid, verifiable evidence presented that proves there has been any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
I don't think you can call this situation 'anything-gate' just yet. Proof is required.

However, if it does turn out to be true, may I be the first to say to all Americans here: sorry about that chaps, exceptionally bad form on our part.

That's a good question, and regardless of the answer, no need to apologize on your end...

But to answer your question, we're still waiting for an investigation to be conducted. We can't know the final outcome of this matter until then. As to the question of "wrongdoing", that's more than likely going to be up to the courts to decide.

originally posted by: Indrasweb

originally posted by: manuelram16
Obamagate keeps growing and growing and ........

Has there been any solid, verifiable evidence presented that proves there has been any wrongdoing? I don't think so.
I don't think you can call this situation 'anything-gate' just yet. Proof is required.

However, if it does turn out to be true, may I be the first to say to all Americans here: sorry about that chaps, exceptionally bad form on our part.

You are right. I do not find anonymous sources as proof. I want to see actual evidence.

The problem is the media, the democrats, and many on ATS have bought the fact that Russia hacked the election without seeing any proof from intelligence agencies, and they have bought the fact that Trump is colluding with Russians despite even DNI clapper saying there is no evidence, and even many democratic senators saying there is no evidence.

The only things we know for sure right now seems to be 1. there are illegal leaks coming out to the press to make Trump look bad, 2. There seems to at least have been a transcript of Flynns conversation with a Russian ambassador. That means that one of Trumps people did show up on a wiretap or something very similar.

We also know that Obama is not beyond wiretapping perceived opponents.

So there should be an investigation into these things, and the fact that most of the media and anti Trump people act like it is a joke to even suggest there were wiretaps (WHEN THEIR OWN NEWSPAPERS REPORTED THAT!!!) proves they are not interested in finding the truth.

a reply to: SBMcG

Of course I would have a problem with that. I would want that person prosecuted to the fullest etc...
I would hope that evidence other than judge Napolitanos friends would be required before assuming that line of inquiry is valid. Has any other source advanced this theory? It's just another "what if" story. There's nothing to support it as true. It's a theory.
If you were on trial I would think you wouldn't want hear say presented to the jury. That's what this is right now. Inadmissible .

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

When did trump and Obama run against each other again? You keep saying his political opponent when in fact they never have been political opponents. Just to refresh your memory trump ran against Hillary Clinton.

Maybe your memory needs refreshing. Obama actively campaigned for Hillary. That would make them political opponents.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Here's the thing about secret cabals, the more people you include the lower the chance of it remaining secret.
Now not only did Obama bug trump but he had other nations involved in the endeavor.
The assumptions we have to make are piling up.
Occams razor states that in any competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SBMcG

Of course I would have a problem with that. I would want that person prosecuted to the fullest etc...
I would hope that evidence other than judge Napolitanos friends would be required before assuming that line of inquiry is valid. Has any other source advanced this theory? It's just another "what if" story. There's nothing to support it as true. It's a theory.
If you were on trial I would think you wouldn't want hear say presented to the jury. That's what this is right now. Inadmissible .

The whole charge of Obama spying on Trump (something he has an established history of doing to others) is not based upon this one report.

This is simply the latest piece of the puzzle.

You don't know what evidence Trump has. There's ZERO chance he doesn't have any because the DOJ would have never requested an extension from the HIC. That would be incredibly stupid.

You have no idea if there's a deal being offered a witness right now, for example.

As for me, I have confirmed to my satisfaction that the part of the Judge's report about the Brits collecting our domestic data is correct. I had no idea that they had such reciprocity with the NSA!

But do you know who did...?

Mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama.

Mmm mmm mmm...

a reply to: brutus61

No I remember just fine. He still wasn't Obama's opponent . Obama supported his opponent.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Here's the thing about secret cabals, the more people you include the lower the chance of it remaining secret.
Now not only did Obama bug trump but he had other nations involved in the endeavor.
The assumptions we have to make are piling up.
Occams razor states that in any competing hypotheses the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

Ok but by the same token then telling more people classified info would make it far more likely to be leaked.

yet we know Obama went out of his way to tell as many people as possible about possible Trump russian connection, including European allies.

So you admit then that Obama knew that this would make leaks of this classified intel far more likely, but he did it anyway?

' "unnamed sources" now reliable and its all true.'
every Trumpaholic.


i also heard Obama used British microwave ovens instead of chinese made ones, due to shotty camera equipment.....

to the believers, little evidence is needed.
so, Dems cant prove Russian contacts, and the president and the Right cant prove wiretapping claims...
what a beautiful dance...

a reply to: SBMcG

To be frank, if evidence is forthcoming that proves British involvement in this, then i should say an apology is most certainly in order! At the very least!

We (as a society as a whole, not as individuals necessarily) have roundly criticised Russia in the strongest terms just at the mere suggestion that they were involved in interfering with the election (for interfering read: revealing the truth).
We are seeing at the moment Turkey's interference in a foreign nation for political gains, and i would certainly condemn them for that also, despite the fact that their meddling has very little impact on the actual political machinations of the nation in question.

Therefore; if it is proven that Britain actively spied on a presidential candidate, at the behest of a sitting president, in order for said president to, perhaps, provide assistance to said candidate's political opponent? Well, i should think that would be completely and utterly outrageous!

Most certainly, it would be far, FAR worse than the Russian's apparently obtaining Hilary Clinton's emails, they are after all, meant to be 'the enemy'.
Whereas, if Britain were to be involved in such business, it could not be viewed as sharing intelligence and helping an ally, it would, in fact, be a betrayal of our closest ally!

Remember, our NATION is allied with your NATION. We are not allied with the president of your nation. Our government is not allied to your government, nor the individuals therein. It is our country as a whole, as a nation, as a concept that is allied to yours. Individuals, whole governments, come and go but the alliance remains.
To risk undermining that in order to do personal favours for certain political parties or candidates is unforgivable in my opinion.

I sincerely hope that this is proven false and that Britain has had no involvement in this, in any way. I fear it would be a matter of great national shame if it were to be proven true.

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

When did trump and Obama run against each other again? You keep saying his political opponent when in fact they never have been political opponents. Just to refresh your memory trump ran against Hillary Clinton.

Maybe your memory needs refreshing. Obama actively campaigned for Hillary.

Another piece to this puzzle, IMHO.

The animosity between the Clinton's and the Obama's is well-documented (Ed Klein, et al). Both Bill Clinton and his wife have always viewed (quite correctly, IMHO) Barack Obama as the inexperienced, unqualified interloper he is. Bill Clinton once famously commented that Obama should be getting him his coffee.

So why was Barry Soetoro so hellbent on campaigning for Bill Clinton's wife -- someone well-known for her barely-closeted hatred of black males?

Cover.

That's my theory, anyway.

I have researched Obama for 8 years and I am convinced his whole facade is so razor thin that it could crumple to dust at any moment.

i truly believe that when the smoke clears and the truth comes out, this whole episode is going to come down to Obama's desperate desire to keep his own past and facts thereof hidden.

a reply to: SBMcG

This is not a report. It's an op-ed. It's uncorroberated. It's a straw man.
Yes those agencies are real. Yes we share information.
The assumption is that Obama utilized these relationships to influence the election.
When that line of inquiry is presented as evidence in the hearing next week it will carry a lot more weight.
Until then it's just another theory presented by another infotainer.
I could show you where pieces of the dossier puzzle are falling into place too but until that is presented as evidence to congress it's just my theory.