Judge Napolitano: ‘Three Intel Sources’ Say Obama Looked to Brit Agency to Spy on Trump

It's actually more of a *******ned shame than a lie when the guy in The Oval Office spews bull-**** before confirming the validity of the information. OMG...not too much to expect.

 

If you like your lies, you can keep your JV's.

 

You made the claim. Both of those things are demonstrably not true. Back it up. If you can. You can't
You just want to throw it out there and make others chase the tail.

Demonstrably not true. There was never over a 100 agents. Like about a dozen, and this was stated under oath, and they were ALL UNANIMOUS in their conclusion.
I think you know that though. If you bothered to read the news, check the fact checking sites, or listened to Comey's testimony.

The opinion of every reasonable prosecutor. You know this too -- the intention here is to divert.

I think the fact you chose that image, and that quote needs to stand there, all alone, by its very lonesome.

 

Oy vey..another Harvard Debate Team captain in our midst.

 

It's actually more of a *******ned shame than a lie when the guy in The Oval Office spews bull-**** before confirming the validity of the information. OMG...not too much to expect.

 

Some Trump haters are beginning to suspect they have been artfully mislead by "friendly" spies.

“Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.

In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?” ROLLING STONE, Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media, By Matt Taibbi, 3/8/17.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...minefield-for-democrats-and-the-media-w471074

 

Here's Obama saying in December that the Russians did NOT rig the election:

 

So its not fake news if you actually believe it.

 

bxw said it was true, not me.

What about you, true story or false?

 

Defense counsel for the NYT, WP and CNN will probably urge them to confess that they just made it all up. Would a jury believe them?

“That all of these officials committed major crimes can hardly be disputed. In January, CNN reported that Flynn’s calls with the Russians “were captured by routine U.S. eavesdropping targeting the Russian diplomats.” That means that the contents of those calls were “obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of [a] foreign government,” which in turn means that anyone who discloses them — or reports them to the public — is guilty of a felony under the statute.” THE INTERCEPT, The Leakers Who Exposed Gen. Flynn’s Lie Committed Serious — and Wholly Justified — Felonies, By, Glenn Greenwald, February 14 2017.
https://theintercept.com/2017/02/14...mitted-serious-and-wholly-justified-felonies/

 

Yes, it's a felony. Their entire story is falling apart.

 

Which part would you like an elaboration on? We can dig into her illegal server, which wasn't even provided with MANDATORY protection that is required for any such network that handles classified information. All such communication devices must (MUST) be wholly enclosed and protected within a government-specified Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). She had no such protection provided for her server network in her mansion!

Or would you rather that we go straight to the deliberate, willful destruction of email messages and devices which had handled them. The emails AND the devices themselves were under a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA when she destroyed them! Oh, and we could always "sweeten the pot" by adding her lying under oath to a Congressional subcommittee!

Focus your request, please. Like I said in the first place -- the evidence of her crimes where piled up to the ceiling and spilling out the windows. And, of course, none of this even touches her malfeasance in turning the State Department into a gigantic WHORE HOUSE for wealthy donors to her Clinton Foundation, but I'll be thrilled to go into THAT if you want to. It wouldn't be fair, though, because Comey never got an opportunity to completely screw up an investigation of THAT. Neither Obama, nor Lynch, nor any of Obama's stooges in the "Justice" Department wanted to go there!

Actually, it was, uh, more like 147 agents. Link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...47-fbi-agents-involved-in-clinton-email-probe

OK, ball's back in your court. Few of us with triple-digit IQ's go for any of this "everybody KNOWS" kind of nonsense. All "reasonable prosecutors"? Can't name one? Don't feel bad -- because Comey didn't bother to name one, either!

I deliberately chose an image of Hitler disingenuously and bewilderingly claiming that nobody could PROVE he intended to start World War II because, from his point of view, it was true! Who, indeed, could prove him wrong? He thought he was taking actions necessary for the good of Germany! Comey used the same kind of stupid, specious reasoning to let Hilarity Clinton off the hook, in spite of mountains of evidence....

Hint: A monster like Hitler, or any other criminal, can surely be guilty of actually committing CRIMES, whether some paper-shuffling, ass-kissing bureaucrat thinks there was any "INTENT" or not! Can we at least agree on THAT?!

 

Yah see? This is why a lot don't bother when you make these kind of repeated false claims. The post quoted had nothing to with Hillary. It was all about Comey and "Obama's wiretap" -- your false "Comey, concluded in about five minutes" claim and the timeline Comey assigned to the Trump investigation, which he never gave. You made those up. Then you punctuate the silliness with one of your typical goof emoticons. As you did here. Again:



Futility is apparent when one has a past history of repeated falsehoods. As you do.

As I said: "Demonstrably not true. There was never over a 100 agents. Like about a dozen, and this was stated under oath, and they were ALL UNANIMOUS in their conclusion. I think you know that though. If you bothered to read the news, check the fact checking sites, or listened to Comey's testimony."

Even your own link disputes you. OOPS. See UPDATE right at the top. And that blogger's update was wrong still (he mea culpa'ed to "less than fifty" )

It actually was less than half of that, and if memory serves, could have been a bit more than a dozen, but I'm not about to go digging around for the exact number. I KNOW the number was small, not anywhere close to that you claim -------------------> AS I HEARD HIS TESTIMONY WITH MY OWN EARS. I guess you didn't, or don't even care to fact check....as I said.

The rest of your stuff is puerile nonsense. But I think I've elucidated for the readers why responding in length to your false claims is worthless and a waste of time.

I have no doubt in a week or two, or maybe a month, you'll be repeating the debunked garbage. Cause, to some....fact's don't matter.

 

You may as ask to prove that the CIA hacked and spied on congress, IF it had not been discovered. No, the CIA did not come to congress and tell them they spied on them. If Obama wanted to spy on trump, do you think he would have left a paper trail? So it could be proved? Does the CIA leave a trail on their operations? LOL Is Obama stupid? Yes or no?

While we are talking about trails....when Russia hacks do they leave a trail, or footprints? Of course not. So if there is a Russian footprint, Russia did not do it.

 

If the dems had this kind of evidence on the trump/putin tin foil hat theory, they would impeach him. Clinton didn't go to prison because Comey set a precedent and said she was just not sophisticated. I think he did it because he didn't want to create a crisis, the same way Ford pardoned Nixon, for doing much less, to avoid a national crisis. In other words, some people like Clinton along with big bankers are too big to jail, and are exempt from prosecution. Except for trump. He would not be too big to jail. Because he is a threat to the establishment which is legalized graft and corruption. Hillary is the poster child for this.

I hope once trump gets most of his promises fulfilled, he turns Sessions loose to clean out the criminals in DC and outside DC. I hope Hillary is one of them.

 

My only remaining question... why did you put an apostrophe in "fact's"...?

You said everything in my post was false... and after you couldn't even try to prove that, you just want to move on to something else? Do you even know what a SCIF is? So, yes, move along then. Try not to trip over your own feet as you make your way....

 

I think Napolitano has been suspended? You still consider him rock solid with dependable knowledge now?http://www.salon.com/2017/03/21/fox...s-latest-conspiracy-theory-embarrasses-world/

 

If there was no wiretap....how did this happen, and why isn't the "Vaunted Intelligence Community" aware of it?

 

Do you realise that it is possible to conduct wiretaps without Trump (or his aides or campaign) being the target?

 

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! Soooo gullible. From January 20th when the article was written until March 8th when they went back in the online archives to change it, their headline on the January 20th article was "Wiretapped data used in inquiry of Trump aides" then they changed it to "surveilled data", and convinced you that this is what it always said.

 

ALL the intelligence agencies responsible for gathering foreign intelligence are OUTSIDE of the FBI AND DOJ. Comey wouldn't know what they are doing.

 

nor would he admit he knows of their spying, it's like liberals are in third grade and can not understand this,
that no one is going to admit to anything in regard to spying on Trump. Insane and naïve to think otherwise.

 

Thanks for the fake news. Napolitano was lying all along and now no longer has a job with Faux News.

 

Fake news. It's Trumps favorite claim for this newspaper, after all.

Since when did they have any credibility with you lot?

Hypocrisy.

 

It makes no difference. It does not say the wiretap or surveillance was on Trump or his aides.
If they had more room for the headline, they could have written "Wiretapped data of Russian Ambassador used in Inquiry of Trump Aides"