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

a reply to: SBMcG

Do you always believe everything from the MSM?

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.

That would be one phone call. Right?

a reply to: SBMcG

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

Yes. Releasing the Flynn conversation was illegal. We know that.
What does it have to do with what Trump claimed?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

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

Link please.

Source

What does that mean? According to Nunes, “incidental” says this wasn’t part of the FBI investigation into Trump & Company’s contacts with Russia. Nunes also said the collection was done legally.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

Do you always believe everything from the MSM?

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.

That would be one phone call. Right?

I believe the MSM when there are multiple sources with similar or corroborative reporting.

Nunes has stated numerous time that there were multiple calls "wiretapped". You should have known that... You have read or listened to the Nunes press statements, right?

Some backup for my comments on Nunes and Flynn meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister in January 2017.

FM Çavuşoğlu meets Trump’s top national security advisor - The Daily Sabah - January 18, 2017

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu met with designated U.S. National Security adviser Rt. Gen. Mike Flynn on Wednesday at Trump Hotel in Washington. "Met with General Flynn, who will assume the position of National Security Advisor, and other officials at a working breakfast in Washington D.C.," Çavuşoğlu tweeted. The meeting marks a first direct reachout between the President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan administration and the incoming Donald Trump administration, other than a phone call between two leaders last November. House Intelligence Committee Congressman Devin Nunes, a Republican heavyweight, also attended the breakfast.

U.S. Ex-CIA Director: Mike Flynn and Turkish Officials Discussed Removal of Erdogan Foe From U.S. -- Wall Street Journal


Flynn And Nunes Met With Turkish Officials In Jan. How Many Dots Are There?! - Daily Kos

Nunes Exposed in Another Career Ending Scandal - The Bipartisan Report

etc. etc.

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

Like I said, you saying this is true doesn't magically make it so.

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

Who knows, you haven't produced even news reports, so on what grounds can you even protest?

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

You haven't produced anything though...

originally posted by: SBMcG
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.

But your heatstreat article isn't talking about names being unmasked. It is just talking about obtaining permits to conduct surveillance on Trump. Everything reported on in that article is by-the-books legal.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

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

Yes. Releasing the Flynn conversation was illegal. We know that.
What does it have to do with what Trump claimed?

You're kidding, right?

Obama is president. A call was "wiretapped" at the HQ of the president-elect. That call was then illegally disseminated.

The Obama Regime wiretapped Team Trump and illegally released the transcripts of that call.

Who else did it -- "the Russians"...?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
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.

But your heatstreat article isn't talking about names being unmasked. It is just talking about obtaining permits to conduct surveillance on Trump. Everything reported on in that article is by-the-books legal.

Wrong again.

It is illegal to unmask names of "incidental" surveillance targets and the widely disseminate that information.

a reply to: SBMcG

A call was "wiretapped" at the HQ of the president-elect.

Was Flynn at Trump Tower when the conversation was recorded?
Was Trump Tower being monitored?

a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a big nothing sandwich you've got there. A career ending scandal is going to a breakfast with erdogan?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Like I said, you saying this is true doesn't magically make it so.

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

Who knows, you haven't produced even news reports, so on what grounds can you even protest?

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

You haven't produced anything though...

Again, if you want empirical evidence proving that the Obama Regime "wiretapped" Trump, that is an impossible standard. All we have to go on is the current reporting, the testimony of Devin Nunes, the facts as they exist (i.e., the Flynn "wiretapping" by the Obama Regime), and the long established history of Obama spying on his political opponents.

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again.

It is illegal to unmask names of "incidental" surveillance targets and the widely disseminate that information.

Whatever, I'm not going to do this playground, NO you are wrong! BS. As for your crime, you've yet to tie that crime to Obama. Just saying a crime exists doesn't mean that Obama is guilty and it STILL isn't proof that Obama is involved in some grand conspiracy to spy on Trump. Because AGAIN the incidental collection was collected legally.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's a big nothing sandwich you've got there. A career ending scandal is going to a breakfast with erdogan?

You may want to reread.

You may want to drop your partisanship and Trump-worship for a minute and put your tin-foil hat back on.

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Like I said, you saying this is true doesn't magically make it so.

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

Who knows, you haven't produced even news reports, so on what grounds can you even protest?

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

You haven't produced anything though...

Again, if you want empirical evidence proving that the Obama Regime "wiretapped" Trump, that is an impossible standard. All we have to go on is the current reporting, the testimony of Devin Nunes, the facts as they exist (i.e., the Flynn "wiretapping" by the Obama Regime), and the long established history of Obama spying on his political opponents.

So you are admitting that you don't have a case then? If you can't prove substantially that Obama did this then you have nothing. That's how it works in a courtroom.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SBMcG

A call was "wiretapped" at the HQ of the president-elect.

Was Flynn at Trump Tower when the conversation was recorded?
Was Trump Tower being monitored?

That's the reporting I've read, but as I wasn't there and able to record the event on my GoPro, I'm sure that reporting won't meet your standard of evidence.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Like I said, you saying this is true doesn't magically make it so.

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

Who knows, you haven't produced even news reports, so on what grounds can you even protest?

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

You haven't produced anything though...

Again, if you want empirical evidence proving that the Obama Regime "wiretapped" Trump, that is an impossible standard. All we have to go on is the current reporting, the testimony of Devin Nunes, the facts as they exist (i.e., the Flynn "wiretapping" by the Obama Regime), and the long established history of Obama spying on his political opponents.

So you are admitting that you don't have a case then? If you can't prove substantially that Obama did this then you have nothing. That's how it works in a courtroom.

I'm "admitting" that the Obama Regime "wiretapped" Team Trump as is abundantly evident by the Flynn matter.

... that is, unless the "wiretap" was on one of Mr. Flynn's foreign "customers" ...

a reply to: Gryphon66

lol, I read all of them except the WSJ article. What's the scandal?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SBMcG
Wrong again.

It is illegal to unmask names of "incidental" surveillance targets and the widely disseminate that information.

Whatever, I'm not going to do this playground, NO you are wrong! BS. As for your crime, you've yet to tie that crime to Obama. Just saying a crime exists doesn't mean that Obama is guilty and it STILL isn't proof that Obama is involved in some grand conspiracy to spy on Trump. Because AGAIN the incidental collection was collected legally.

Wrong again...

Obama was president. He either knew about the "wiretapping" and illegal dissemination of the intelligence collected or he didn't. If he knew about it, he was in on it. If he didn't, he's even more clueless than I thought.