Posted on 03/07/2017 1:11:26 AM PST by SteveH
Shortly after this meeting, Loretta Lynch allegedly made her first FISA request to tap Trump’s lines. It was denied. The DOJ was told to narrow its search down (apparently).
In late July, a group of (allegedly) independent and (allegedly) benevolent computer scientists took it upon themselves (allegedly) to investigate a server/DNS associated with Trump Organization and discovered that it was "pinging" a server associated with a bank (ALFA Bank) in Russia. Slate reveals the details of this "independent" investigation on October 31st.
At some point, earlier in the month of October, a second FISA request was made which doesn't specifically name Trump (apparently) and which narrows down the search to the aforementioned server. Nothing illegal is found (apparently). Nothing risng to the level of a FISA warrant is found (apparently).
On Fix last night, Kathryn Harris said that the leaks of the transcripts could only have come from the “highest levels in the Intelligence Community” because they are the only ones who have access to those transcripts.
Not sure if I follow the logic about the level, but I’m pretty clear on which agencies do the listening.
In all this fury about Trump's people having contact with the Russians, and the suspicion that the Russians were attempting to tamper with the election, something is sorely lacking which needs to be considered. And I'm asking FReepers to help me phrase the right questions.
The media parrots the same nonsense about collusion, and election tampering. So my questions to the media are:
What is your working theory on what advice the Russians gave the Trump campaign? Phrased differently, specify what advice from Russians did Trump follow which helped him win? Specify beside advice, what actual help the Russians gave Trump's team.
Give a lucid theory on something that the Russians and Trump's team agreed upon which guaranteed that Trump would win. Give examples of massive public support by the Russians in TV, radio, and print, which would be likely to convince American voters to vote for Donald Trump.
I'm flailing a little here, but what did the Russians actually do? What did they say? How did they get their message out? Where were specific points of election tampering. Where are points demonstrating campaign coordination with Trump's people?
Without a working theory, and plausible examples of advice and coordination, there is no possible path to conclude that the Russians helped Trump win the election.
The timeline omits a couple of things like Lynch’s tete-a-tete with Bilious Clinton.
I think they want it to turn out to be Putin and Trump conspiring to hack the voting machines as well as the DNC and Podesta. As proof, of course, is that several states noted attempts to break into their systems. Of course, the breaker-in was identified as the FedGov.
missing from the timeline:
Oct 31, 2016 @HillaryClinton likes: 16,056 retweets: 12,449
“Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based Bank” with a snapshot of “A Statement by Jake Sullian on the new report exposing Trump’s secret line of communication to Russia - “the Trump organization felt it had something to hide”
Dec 29, 2016 - Flynn speaks with Russian counterpart. Obama hits Russia with sanctions the same day. (bear in mind that the conversation would have been on a secure line installed in Trump Tower, with intel notified in advance and correct protocol followed by Flynn) Trump tweets: “Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks. Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!”
* from the Russians
Don't ALL organizations??
Even sweet ol' ELSIE has stuff to hide!
btt
Here is another one that gets into some of this. NPR is trying to double down on the “Trump is nuts” bet. I heard one of them yesterday say that Clapper’s word is gold. If he says it, you can take it to the bank.
Yeah, sure...
Oops. the link:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/03/the-shadow-government-timeline/#more-129451
There is that January 20, 2017 front page top of the fold article in NYT as well. “Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides.”
Your post got me thinking: Many believe that everyone in DC has dirt on everyone else, which is used to create deals in a “I won’t rat you out if you don’t rat me out” way. But this does not work because there is no “there” there, and even when they tried it with the “grab ‘em by the...” revelation, it failed.
It makes me wonder if all these wiretaps, etc. are a desperate attempt by the #uniparty to find SOME SORT OF DIRT that CAN be used to control him. It looks like he just doesn’t care. He seems to be the most politically free president we’ve had in over a century.
Is that benevolent group of computer scientists “Crowdstrike?”
Their goal is to make Trump look stupid. leaving out certain facts is one way they do this. I’ve seen stories that make no sense (even conservative sources do this), but when I research the FULL story it often turns out that the original source left out critical data (that they obviously had in their posession) that would have made it all make sense, but become a non-story.
I actually caught Kirby Wilbur doing this on a Seattle radio station about a decade ago. People were calling in, outraged by the unfair story, but when all the facts came out, it made perfect sense. What was don was the proper thing to do.
The press loves to get us worked up. It sells papers.
These authors keep ignoring that the NSA sweeps up everything.
The data is there to be abused.
A FISA warrant, therefore, is not to create a legal eavesdrop data set, but it is authorization to delve into that already collected data.
The hard truth that will not be mentioned by this “command state” writer and others is that the data is there already and is ripe for abuse by anyone willing to lie.
“any believe that everyone in DC has dirt on everyone else, which is used to create deals in a “I won’t rat you out if you don’t rat me out” way.”
This whole thing reminds me of the final duel in “For A Few Dollars More” with Eastwood, Van Cleef and Volonte standing there with the pocket watch ticking down to certain death for someone.
I think you might actually be intending to refer to eastwood, van cleef, and wallach and the mexican standoff in “the good, the bad, and the ugly.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.