Posted on 03/06/2017 7:24:32 AM PST by Helicondelta
I agree. Many could keep reminding the media of hillary.
I think a better question is: is it possible that the NSA was given a ticket to tap a Chinese Bank but ‘accidentally’ tapped Donald Trump in the same building a few floors up? You know those contractors, rookie mistakes.
#33 - and lots of folks can be put under questioning.
Hard to get the ball rolling, if the senate has AG Sessions team bottled-up in the approval process.
Shame on the senate.
Certifications made by the Attorney General pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title and applications made and orders granted under this subchapter shall be retained for a period of at least ten years from the date of the certification or application.
“wants access to any order, issued by the ultra-secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,”
Secret courts...like in the constitution. Oh wait...
He says all hell is about to break loose.
So the “Russian Bank” in question is found to be ^shifty^ because they do not adhere to and are not regulated by USA rules (Dodd-Frank)?
The "Bank" deal is important in all of this. Remember how the left and the media went full tilt on demanding that Trump reveal his Russian business interests? Remember Romney and his "tax filing" bombshell that Russian ties would be exposed by the taxes? Where did all of those people get a scent of that trail?
This stuff has been weaponized and deployed to opponents for many months now.
So, MSM and opponents say Trump has to release taxes because they might reveal Russian interests. Meanwhile, there are phone taps and surveillance in place to see what Trump's private reaction to the claim might be.
All in all, a very big setup.
Clapper’s argument seemed to revolve around Obama ORDERING a wiretap. Obama couldn’t do that. He could only request a wiretap, which he should NOT do.
Clapper later admitted “If there was a wiretap, I didn’t know about it”. Well.......thank you, Captain Obvious.
LIEberal Newspeak terms are just so fascinating.. eheheh
Good point!
#53, Are you incinuating that the Obama DOJ would lie to a court. HOW COULD YOU THINK SUCH A THING. They would never do that............
Except for those few times in the DACA case in Texas and Holder to Congressional Committees
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-immigration-20150319-story.html
oooooops— sorry— posted to wrong thread.
At a minimum they used the Chinese bank connection to link to Russia to anyone else’s bank as cover for listening to everyone. If Chase is your bank, they say “Mama is connected to Russia through financial services interconnected. “
Flimsy but enough for a political hack judge...which most of them are. They want to cover. They couldn’t care less about truth.
Too late. He should have done that before they shredded the evidence.
We hope.
See #74. Should have pinged you
“A senior White House official tells the New York Times’” = “unsubstantiated rumor” = the usual fake news based on rumors from NYT and WaPo
so....what did Chuck Grassley know and when did he know it?
Exactly. We already know the June application was turned down. That’s irrelevant in respect of obtaining the application itself from Obama’s underlings. That’s original material of an unsuccessful first attempt to get Trump.Now the only issue is if the ‘material’ was digitized and consequently destroyed. Then it is likely a motion or application would have to be made to that court for production. The same would apply to the successful application in October.
But another issue arises as well. Are the applications by law in-camera? Is the Judge in either case a compellable witness by Congress?
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.