The Fake News Depot
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
Trump's charge is made "without any evidence" (which is how you portray in the press something as being unfounded and ridiculous), while fiormer Obama officials deny the allegations, and the denias are immediately accepted as stone-cold, irrefutable truth.
Yet we know for a fact that the FBI sought and was granted a FISA request to put surveillance on the banking computers in Trump Tower.
Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone is the CNN updated headline, going on to say, two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
The other guy flatly states Trump's phones were never tapped. "This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
OK, sure, Trump alleges his "phones" were tapped, and the FISA order more broadly authorized surveillance of "telecommunications" including the examining of the contents of emails. So the Former Obama Intel officials are technically correct in saying this phones were not tapped (as instead all telecommunications were tapped, regardless of the appliances used), but still.
The one quote that really catches the attention is from Obama spokesman
Kevin Lewis, who called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
(that seems to be a little needlessly specific, and leaves the door wide open for others to have done just that)
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."
(yet we know for a fact that Obama steered Eric Holder all the time towards and away from various investigations)
The other part of that quote is, "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
Of course, Eric Snowden proved that statement to be false, not even counting when Obama ordered surveillance on, and the targeted killing of, US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. But I won't quibble.
But one thing Snowden did show, and it wasn't refuted, was just how easy it was to get the secret court to sign off on FISA requests. You can literally count on one hand how many they rejected over a 4 year period.
Trump may very well just be wound up over crackpot Mark Levin's Friday claims about this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Trump tweeted in response to something he read or heard on the news
But the story, first broke by NYT, Mother Jones and, of all outlets, Slate, back in October and has been floating around even liberal news outlets ever since. It kinda makes you (and apparently Levin and Trump) wonder if there isn't something to it all.
Yet we know for a fact that the FBI sought and was granted a FISA request to put surveillance on the banking computers in Trump Tower.
Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping his phone is the CNN updated headline, going on to say, two former senior US officials quickly dismissed Trump's accusations out of hand.
"Just nonsense," said one former senior US intelligence official.
The other guy flatly states Trump's phones were never tapped. "This did not happen. It is false. Wrong," the former official told CNN.
OK, sure, Trump alleges his "phones" were tapped, and the FISA order more broadly authorized surveillance of "telecommunications" including the examining of the contents of emails. So the Former Obama Intel officials are technically correct in saying this phones were not tapped (as instead all telecommunications were tapped, regardless of the appliances used), but still.
The one quote that really catches the attention is from Obama spokesman
Kevin Lewis, who called "any suggestion" that Obama or any White House official ordered surveillance against Trump "simply false."
(that seems to be a little needlessly specific, and leaves the door wide open for others to have done just that)
"A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."
(yet we know for a fact that Obama steered Eric Holder all the time towards and away from various investigations)
The other part of that quote is, "As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any US citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
Of course, Eric Snowden proved that statement to be false, not even counting when Obama ordered surveillance on, and the targeted killing of, US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. But I won't quibble.
But one thing Snowden did show, and it wasn't refuted, was just how easy it was to get the secret court to sign off on FISA requests. You can literally count on one hand how many they rejected over a 4 year period.
Trump may very well just be wound up over crackpot Mark Levin's Friday claims about this. It certainly wouldn't be the first time Trump tweeted in response to something he read or heard on the news
But the story, first broke by NYT, Mother Jones and, of all outlets, Slate, back in October and has been floating around even liberal news outlets ever since. It kinda makes you (and apparently Levin and Trump) wonder if there isn't something to it all.
It doesn't mean Obama wasn't still involved with a wink and a nod to DOJ Lynch.
Obama personally calling on the FBI to wiretap a political opponent would be stupid on his part. It doesn't work that way.
BREAKING: Comey Asks DOJ to Reject Trump’s Wiretap Accusations
Obama personally calling on the FBI to wiretap a political opponent would be stupid on his part. It doesn't work that way.
BREAKING: Comey Asks DOJ to Reject Trump’s Wiretap Accusations
Last edited:
Talk show host Mark Levin was on Fox this morning. He states his case about this:
Mark Levin: 'Donald Trump Is the Victim' in Alleged Obama Wiretapping Scandal
Mark Levin: 'Donald Trump Is the Victim' in Alleged Obama Wiretapping Scandal
Well, yes and no. If Obama (or his Justice Department or the FBI) were wiretapping (or otherwise surveilling) the Trump campaign, or any other political opponent, that needs to be looked at very carefully, as that's a gross abuse of power. Nixon got in trouble because he tried to cover up a break-in of the DNC in order to spy on and gather intel on the Democratic Party.
By the same token, if someone in the Trump campaign was indeed in collusion with the Russians to break into the DNC and Podesta computers, that looks bad, but it's probably not even illegal, unless they actually facilitated the phising hacks, which is doesn't appear that they did. It certainly wouldn't be treason, since we're not even at war with Russia, and treason can only be carried out in the aid of an enemy. So whenever you hear a Dem use the word "treason" in relation to Trump or anyone on his campaign, you can be assured that they're full of political crap.
The FISA court order that allows wiretapping, requires probable cause. But probable cause for a regular court is not the same animal as probable cause for a FISA court. You can only get a FISA wiretap order if the subject of the order is a foreign agent, or a US citizen acting as or on behalf of a foreign power. That doesn't mean the FBI can't fudge things a little and obtain a warrant for someone, and then use it to tap phones and conversations of people who are not part of the warrant (Eric Snowden proved that has happened, a lot). But if the FBI were able to convince a FISA judge to issue a warrant for someone in Trump's campaign, that is worth a closer look, too, as they had to convince the judge that the subject of the warrant was a foreign agent.
If a FISA warrant exists, Trump can get his hands on it. And he can release it. I got a kick out of some intelligence "expert" the other day on TV saying that it's illegal for Trump to release classified information. No it's not. The President has the ultimate authority on what is and is not classified, and he can classify and de-classify anything he wants. The entire system of classification comes from an Executive Order of the Office of the President. Trump can ask for and will receive any information he wants, and if he so chooses, he can just up and release it to anybody he wants, including the public.
So Trump really doesn't need a Congressional investigation as to whether or not anyone in Trump Tower was bugged. He can just look at the reports.
Trump Tweets: "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!"
The Press (and the Left - I know those terms are redundant, but I still need to keep using them) want to hold Trump to precise language. In a Tweet. They think a Tweet is the same as a carefully crafted, precisely chosen worded statement. To them, the Tweet of "Obama has my" means Obama personally ordered that Trump's personal phone lines be tapped. They leave no room whatsoever that the Tweet might mean something else, like someone in the Obama administration (i.e., members of the the Justice Department and/or the FBI) put some kind of surveillance on telecommunications lines in Trump Tower for people in or around the campaign or associated with the campaign.
At the same time, the Press (et al) take former DNI James Clapper's statement at face value as being broad and all encompassing. "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 as a candidate, or against his campaign."
It's important to note that the DNI doesn't oversee the Department of Justice or the FBI. The only parts of the DoJ and FBI that is directly under DNI oversight is the Office of National Security Intelligence, a department under the DEA under the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Branch of the FBI, a department of the FBI, also under the Justice Department. So anyone in any other department of DoJ or the FBI could have executed a FISA warrant and that would have been completely out of the purview of Clapper.
The also take the statement from Obama's camp as the same pedantically precise gospel, from Obama spokeman Kevin Lewis: "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
There were a whole lot of people in the Obama Administration that weren't necessarily Obama and weren't necessarily a White House official. Every single member of the Department of Justice and the FBI fits into that category, for example.
I can imagine a scenario where the President (be it Obama, Trump, or any other President) says to someone at Justice, "See if there's anyway you can wrangle a wire tap on Joe Blow. Not an order, of course, but if the opportunity presents itself, that would be great. <wink wink, nudge nudge>"
Incidentally, FBI Director James Comey has (reportedly) asked the Justice Department to refute Trump's wiretapping claim, and the Justice Department refused. And isn't that interesting.
Personally, as unlikely as it is, I think it's far more likely that there was a wiretap in Trump Tower than there is that anyone on the Trump campaign team colluded with the Russians to influence the election. The Trump campaign simply wasn't prepared or organized enough to do something like that, and not have it already factually known that it happened. So far, even according to Clapper, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion at all between the Russians and anyone in or related to the Trump campaign.
The Press (and the Left - I know those terms are redundant, but I still need to keep using them) want to hold Trump to precise language. In a Tweet. They think a Tweet is the same as a carefully crafted, precisely chosen worded statement. To them, the Tweet of "Obama has my" means Obama personally ordered that Trump's personal phone lines be tapped. They leave no room whatsoever that the Tweet might mean something else, like someone in the Obama administration (i.e., members of the the Justice Department and/or the FBI) put some kind of surveillance on telecommunications lines in Trump Tower for people in or around the campaign or associated with the campaign.
At the same time, the Press (et al) take former DNI James Clapper's statement at face value as being broad and all encompassing. "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 as a candidate, or against his campaign."
It's important to note that the DNI doesn't oversee the Department of Justice or the FBI. The only parts of the DoJ and FBI that is directly under DNI oversight is the Office of National Security Intelligence, a department under the DEA under the Justice Department, and the Intelligence Branch of the FBI, a department of the FBI, also under the Justice Department. So anyone in any other department of DoJ or the FBI could have executed a FISA warrant and that would have been completely out of the purview of Clapper.
The also take the statement from Obama's camp as the same pedantically precise gospel, from Obama spokeman Kevin Lewis: "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."
There were a whole lot of people in the Obama Administration that weren't necessarily Obama and weren't necessarily a White House official. Every single member of the Department of Justice and the FBI fits into that category, for example.
I can imagine a scenario where the President (be it Obama, Trump, or any other President) says to someone at Justice, "See if there's anyway you can wrangle a wire tap on Joe Blow. Not an order, of course, but if the opportunity presents itself, that would be great. <wink wink, nudge nudge>"
Incidentally, FBI Director James Comey has (reportedly) asked the Justice Department to refute Trump's wiretapping claim, and the Justice Department refused. And isn't that interesting.
Personally, as unlikely as it is, I think it's far more likely that there was a wiretap in Trump Tower than there is that anyone on the Trump campaign team colluded with the Russians to influence the election. The Trump campaign simply wasn't prepared or organized enough to do something like that, and not have it already factually known that it happened. So far, even according to Clapper, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was any collusion at all between the Russians and anyone in or related to the Trump campaign.
There's an update, and it sure looks like Trump may be right. Sort of. Trump or the campaign itself wasn't targeted, apparently, but that doesn't mean communications among Trump and members of the campaign weren't "caught" in "incidental surveilance." <snort> Which is exactly what I originally thought took place, where a FISA warrant was issued for something very specific, and then it got used, accidentally on purpose, for wider intelligence gathering.
One of the problems with Trump's Tweet is that he used the term "wire tap" when he is using that term as a catch-all to mean any and all methods of electronic intelligence gathering. But the press is hammering on the precise language he used. You'd think by now the press would know better. You'd also think by now the press would know that Trump's Tweets tend to be about 5 steps ahead of the press, and more often than not he turns out to be right.
But here's the update:
This former British lawmaker is at the heart of the Trump wiretap allegations
Louise Mensch, the journalist who first reported this, was just on Fox News talking about it. I'm sure we'll see more of her, as she now lives in New York. But one thing to keep in mind about her is, she is a conservative, but also a stone-cold anti-Trumper. She worked on Trump-Russia connections for a long time trying to thwart his nomination and election, and even worked on anti-Trump campaign ads for Hillary. So it's not like she's reporting on the FISA orders to help Trump.
One of the problems with Trump's Tweet is that he used the term "wire tap" when he is using that term as a catch-all to mean any and all methods of electronic intelligence gathering. But the press is hammering on the precise language he used. You'd think by now the press would know better. You'd also think by now the press would know that Trump's Tweets tend to be about 5 steps ahead of the press, and more often than not he turns out to be right.
But here's the update:
This former British lawmaker is at the heart of the Trump wiretap allegations
Louise Mensch, the journalist who first reported this, was just on Fox News talking about it. I'm sure we'll see more of her, as she now lives in New York. But one thing to keep in mind about her is, she is a conservative, but also a stone-cold anti-Trumper. She worked on Trump-Russia connections for a long time trying to thwart his nomination and election, and even worked on anti-Trump campaign ads for Hillary. So it's not like she's reporting on the FISA orders to help Trump.
Just seen Clapper on and he said it never happened. lmao
Too many winks to mention.
Still think they will shuck and jive and say they were looking for Russians.
Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Well, Clapper's job was to lie to the American people. He did it under oath in front of Congress. Then later said his answer was the "least untruthful" way he could answer it. So he lies for a living, and even has his lies being subject to self-gradation as to the severity.
With Clapper and especially Brennan coming hard at Trump from the day after the election, and the fact that Obama made it easy for intelligence agencies to share information (ostensibly to "preserve" the information, that would of course be preserved regardless), that allows for easier leaking, it sure seems that there is an orchestrated effort within the intelligence community to undermine Trump's presidency. We've seen an unprecedented amount of classified information be leaked by, as the NYT calls them, "current and former" intelligence officials. This could get really ugly before it's over.
Trump will have to unleash DOJ on everyone in the intelligence communities, including the FBI, and get to the bottom of it. Most people in the intelligence agencies, all of them with any kind of security clearance, is subject to routine and random polygraphs. Eventually they'll get caught, or at least lose their jobs and clearances for being deceptive. But the sooner the better.
On a side note, a little while ago I heard Bill O'Reilly proclaim, "I'm a journalist."
With Clapper and especially Brennan coming hard at Trump from the day after the election, and the fact that Obama made it easy for intelligence agencies to share information (ostensibly to "preserve" the information, that would of course be preserved regardless), that allows for easier leaking, it sure seems that there is an orchestrated effort within the intelligence community to undermine Trump's presidency. We've seen an unprecedented amount of classified information be leaked by, as the NYT calls them, "current and former" intelligence officials. This could get really ugly before it's over.
Trump will have to unleash DOJ on everyone in the intelligence communities, including the FBI, and get to the bottom of it. Most people in the intelligence agencies, all of them with any kind of security clearance, is subject to routine and random polygraphs. Eventually they'll get caught, or at least lose their jobs and clearances for being deceptive. But the sooner the better.
On a side note, a little while ago I heard Bill O'Reilly proclaim, "I'm a journalist."
Big jobs report out, besting even the most optimistic economists expectations (which in and of itself means squat, as every jobs report in history has been either wildly higher or wildly lower than economist predictions), and overall wages have increased by 6 cents, and 11 cents total since inauguration.
The Washington Post instantly gives Obama the credit, downplaying any effect Trump may have had on the numbers, and finishes out the second half of the jobs story with repeated accusations of Trump-Russia ties and Trump's accusations of being wire tapped.
The Washington Post instantly gives Obama the credit, downplaying any effect Trump may have had on the numbers, and finishes out the second half of the jobs story with repeated accusations of Trump-Russia ties and Trump's accusations of being wire tapped.
Shep can be such a tool sometimes (OK, most of the time). He's having a giggly gigity time mocking Kellyanne Conway and her "microwaves that can turn into a camera" comment. Apparently he thinks microwaves were invented for, and are only used, in ovens. "Fox News has confirmed microwaves cannot turn into cameras."
In his defense, most of the rest of the press is doing the same thing. Including those who two years ago had reported on, you know, cameras that use microwaves to see through walls.
New Metamaterial Camera Has Super-Fast Microwave Vision
In his defense, most of the rest of the press is doing the same thing. Including those who two years ago had reported on, you know, cameras that use microwaves to see through walls.
New Metamaterial Camera Has Super-Fast Microwave Vision
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
Don't microwave equal radar / x-rays which has been proven to cause cancer
X-rays are high frequency (high energy) above the visible light spectrum, and can strip electrons from individual atoms. That's why they can do irreversible and cumulative damage to your cells.
Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) and microwaves are both in the Radio Spectrum and do not have the energy to do the kind of damage to your body, unless they are externally powered at both wattage. Radio waves work more like thermal in doing damage, where low power isn't damaging. Turn on a conventional oven at low power, like 100 degrees, and put your hand in there. Not a problem. Raise the power to 500 degrees, it becomes a problem.
The microwaves used by your microwave have the same frequency as the microwaves used by your WIFI router's radio antenna. Both penetrate objects to some extent and reflect off objects to some extent (which is why microwaves can be used as a camera of sorts, and it's how hackers (or the NSA, FBI, etc.) can use your WiFi router to determine where people are in a room). But the microwave oven has more power.
Radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging) and microwaves are both in the Radio Spectrum and do not have the energy to do the kind of damage to your body, unless they are externally powered at both wattage. Radio waves work more like thermal in doing damage, where low power isn't damaging. Turn on a conventional oven at low power, like 100 degrees, and put your hand in there. Not a problem. Raise the power to 500 degrees, it becomes a problem.
The microwaves used by your microwave have the same frequency as the microwaves used by your WIFI router's radio antenna. Both penetrate objects to some extent and reflect off objects to some extent (which is why microwaves can be used as a camera of sorts, and it's how hackers (or the NSA, FBI, etc.) can use your WiFi router to determine where people are in a room). But the microwave oven has more power.
JohnWC
Veteran Expediter
Sorry but they are not good for you and long time exposure to stuff is still not proven one way or another
Well, long term exposure is kinda proven, considering that people have been bombarded 24/7 by radio waves ever since the invention of the radio. Lightening generates high energy radio waves that can bounce back and forth between the Earth and the ionosphere, and can travel around the world, for days. Radio waves are generated by overhead powerlines, with long distance power lines creating the more powerful radiation.
With any frequency within the entire electromagnetic spectrum (of which we are all bombarded daily) the higher the frequency the less exposure is needed to cause damage (gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet - shortest to longer), and the lower frequency (visible light, infrared, microwaves, radio waves - shortest to longer) the more exposure is required for damage. So it's not about long term exposure, per se, unless you also include the intensity level of that exposure. Every frequency along the electromagnetic spectrum (including visible light) is harmful in that they all have possible effects on living tissue.
Generally different ranges of electromagnetic waves affect different materials (Affect = Have effect on, not necessarily harmful). This is what allows us to see the world around is in all its beautiful colors (visible spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum). This, is also what causes sunburns, or skin cancer, in the extreme cases.
What actually causes the harm is the power delivered into your body cells by the wave. Since most electromagnetic waves in the low frequency range (radio waves) have high rates of absorption/diffusion in things you see around you, like trees, earth, water, or any sort of matter for that matter, what really causes the difference is your proximity to the source, the intensity level of the exposure, and the duration of exposure.
So you can go to bed at night knowing your body is is just being ravaged by a constant bombardment of microwave radiation from your WiFi router. But you can sleep easy knowing that even though the microwave wavelength of the router is exactly the same as your microwave oven, the router isn't nearly as intense as the oven (or standing in sunlight for an hour), so even long term exposure comes with minimal risks.