Sara Carter Is Back And She Lets On That Trump Wiretap Traces To The top

originally posted by: SBMcG
No magic needed. The reporting and evidence is clear -- Team Trump was "wiretapped". Obama has a long history of wiretapping and spying on his political opponents and even members of the press (James Rosen, AP reporters).

So? That isn't evidence that Obama tapped Trump. In fact, that is known as "leading the witness" since it is completely irrelevant to proving if Obama wiretapped Trump Tower except in order to bias someone against Obama before the evidence can be presented.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes has confirmed that there was surveillance and illegal activity in the unmasking of the names of Americans being "wiretapped".

You may want to check a BIT more thoroughly into what exactly Nunes has and hasn't confirmed. You don't appear to have a full grasp of the situation.

Representative Peter King has also said that President Trump is correct in his claims.

So? How does his opinion matter in the slightest? The investigation is carrying away from Donald Trump's claims whether you like to admit it or not.

Personally, I hope Obama is brought to justice for his numerous crimes, but doubt this one will stick to him.

Stick? There is nothing to throw at him. Good luck with your hopes there guy, but you might as well be wishing for a genie to pop out of one of your house lamps while cleaning it.

a reply to: SBMcG

James Rosen claims to have direct evidence linking the Obama Regime to "wiretapping" of Trump.

Yeah. So?
Illegally leaked to him?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
No magic needed. The reporting and evidence is clear -- Team Trump was "wiretapped". Obama has a long history of wiretapping and spying on his political opponents and even members of the press (James Rosen, AP reporters).

So? That isn't evidence that Obama tapped Trump. In fact, that is known as "leading the witness" since it is completely irrelevant to proving if Obama wiretapped Trump Tower except in order to bias someone against Obama before the evidence can be presented.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes has confirmed that there was surveillance and illegal activity in the unmasking of the names of Americans being "wiretapped".

You may want to check a BIT more thoroughly into what exactly Nunes has and hasn't confirmed. You don't appear to have a full grasp of the situation.

Representative Peter King has also said that President Trump is correct in his claims.

So? How does his opinion matter in the slightest? The investigation is carrying away from Donald Trump's claims whether you like to admit it or not.

Personally, I hope Obama is brought to justice for his numerous crimes, but doubt this one will stick to him.

Stick? There is nothing to throw at him. Good luck with your hopes there guy, but you might as well be wishing for a genie to pop out of one of your house lamps while cleaning it.

No level of evidence will ever meet your standards.

The Nunes statements alone should be a pretty good indication that Trump's claims ring true. There is considerable reporting to back that up.

There are dozens of links to news reports in this thread. My suggestion is that you go back and review them.

Anyone notice the hew and cry that arises from the New York Times, or Washington Post or CNN reporting on "unnamed sources" but let some one go on an infotainment show at Fox and make some preposterous TOTALLY UNSUPPORTED claim and they're repeating it like Gospel?

I think we're wasting our time arguing rationally against the ramblings of Trump cult members.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

James Rosen claims to have direct evidence linking the Obama Regime to "wiretapping" of Trump.

Yeah. So?

Did you read the reporting or are you such a two-dimensional thinker you can't get out of your own way?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You live in quite the echo chamber if you think there is anything to the Russia BS.

Take a moment and think about it. What is trump even being accused of?

a reply to: SBMcG

Yes, I heard Rosen.
That's why I said, "so?"

a reply to: Gryphon66

If rational argument consists of being absurdly irrational, I guess that would be true.

Why, in the world, would anyone rational trust Devin Nunes?

He was part of Trump's transition team.

As such, he and Flynn met with the Turkish Foreign Minister to "negotiate" terms that Turkey wanted from the new Administration.

He ran to Trump (whose surrogates, operatives and staff is the party at least tacitly under investigation) what whatever evidence he thinks he has but didn't share it with the HOUSE Intelligence Committee and STILL HASN'T? And can't tell anyone what it is?

COME ON.

NM

a reply to: Dfairlite

What is trump even being accused of?

Nothing, as yet. Nor has anyone else.
That's why there is (are) investigations. To find out more about how Russia did what it did and who may have been involved. To find out if crimes were committed.

originally posted by: SBMcG
No level of evidence will ever meet your standards.

You have to actually provide evidence first before you can say that.

The Nunes statements alone should be a pretty good indication that Trump's claims ring true. There is considerable reporting to back that up.

Only if you don't fully understand what they say and what incidental collection means.

There are dozens of links to news reports in this thread. My suggestion is that you go back and review them.

News reports aren't evidence and since when do you trust the MSM?

You know you tell me that no evidence will satisfy me, heck it looks like you are ACTIVELY seeking evidence to counter reality so you don't have to believe it is true. All evidence released so far suggests that Trump was wrong. Obama didn't do anything wrong. I know you think the Nunes report says otherwise, but you are wrong. Even Nunes has admitted that the incidentally collected names have nothing to do with Trump's wiretap claims. This is why I said you need to read a bit more thoroughly into what was said. These words ALSO appear in all those news reports that you are so fond of vaguely sourcing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You don't like my agreeing with you?

The MSM itself proved that Obama was "wiretapping" Team Trump!

Way back in January, Heat Street, The Guardian, The BBC, and McClatchy all confirmed that he Obama administration sought and/or received surveillance warrants aimed at Team Trump. Way back in January, The New York Times reported that the Obama White House was looking at wiretap intelligence related to Trump. Way back in February, The Washington Post, CNN, the Associated Press, NBC News, CBS News, and ABC News all gleefully reported on private telephone calls that were surveilled by the Obama administration and then illegally made public to the media. Then, In March, just weeks after all of this reporting on the awesomeness of Obama-era surveillance warrants and intercepted phone calls … Despite their own knowledge, despite their own reporting, despite the words they publicly printed and the words they publicly spoke, every single one of these news outlets declared Trump a liar for the sin of what …? For the sin of believing the same people now smearing him as a liar.

12 Pieces Of Proof: The MSM Knew Obama Spied On Trump and LIED To Cover It Up

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You live in quite the echo chamber if you think there is anything to the Russia BS.

I know there is something to the fact that he is being investigated, because that was confirmed this past Monday.

Take a moment and think about it. What is trump even being accused of?

Nothing yet. The investigation is ongoing, but things aren't looking good. But you never know. Ask me this question again after the investigation wraps up.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even Nunes has admitted that the incidentally collected names have nothing to do with Trump's wiretap claims

Link please.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How are they not looking good?

a reply to: SBMcG

You do know that is all 100% legal right? So no matter what you think it proves, it doesn't implicate Obama in any grand conspiracies.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
No level of evidence will ever meet your standards.

You have to actually provide evidence first before you can say that.

The Nunes statements alone should be a pretty good indication that Trump's claims ring true. There is considerable reporting to back that up.

Only if you don't fully understand what they say and what incidental collection means.

There are dozens of links to news reports in this thread. My suggestion is that you go back and review them.

News reports aren't evidence and since when do you trust the MSM?

You know you tell me that no evidence will satisfy me, heck it looks like you are ACTIVELY seeking evidence to counter reality so you don't have to believe it is true. All evidence released so far suggests that Trump was wrong. Obama didn't do anything wrong. I know you think the Nunes report says otherwise, but you are wrong. Even Nunes has admitted that the incidentally collected names have nothing to do with Trump's wiretap claims. This is why I said you need to read a bit more thoroughly into what was said. These words ALSO appear in all those news reports that you are so fond of vaguely sourcing.

All the evidence released so far indicates Trump was CORRECT in his initial claims that the Obama Regime was "wiretapping" Team Trump.

If news reports are not evidence, what is? This is ATS, not the Supreme Court.

So far you Obama apologists have failed miserably to refute the reporting of the MSM you love so much on this matter.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SBMcG

You do know that is all 100% legal right? So no matter what you think it proves, it doesn't implicate Obama in any grand conspiracies.

Completely wrong. It is highly illegal to unmask names of "incidental" surveillance targets and then disseminate them to inappropriate parties.

It is quite clear that the Obama Regime was spying on Trump.