Posted on 03/08/2017 7:32:28 AM PST by Helicondelta
Several readers have written in this week saying they’re having a hard time squaring The Times’s own past reports of wiretapping with the paper’s assertions that there is no firm evidence that any warrants for wiretaps have been issued. Readers also expressed confusion with The Times’s assertion that it would be illegal for a White House to receive information about such investigations, when its own wiretapping story in January said the Trump White House was given some information from intercepted communications.
“For months now the NY Times and many other mainstream news sources has been running stories based on anonymous leaks saying that a massive investigation was going on into Trump and company’s Russian dealings based on wiretaps and intel intercepts,” wrote John Penley of Asheville, N.C. “Now Obama officials are saying this all never happened so my question is this: Why have the NY Times and others been saying it has for months now basing their stories on anonymous leaks?”
I reached out to editors in the Washington bureau to seek their help in clarifying the difference between Clapper’s — and The Times’s — assertions that no warrants had been issued, and the reference to wiretapping in the January story.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hoisted by their own boot straps.
GLORIOUS
The inevitability of Hilly emboldened the MSM and Barry O to sink to new levels of deceit /deception/spying to destroy the last vestige of freedom named “ Donald Trump”
Exploding Heads at the NY Slimes.....blood and brains all over their slimey walls.
They look just great. NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL!
Lynch did it, assumed future President Hillary ordered it, as Lynch was going to keep her job
Bingo......
It’s only wiretapping if it is unfavorable to the Prez, otherwise the suggestion is paranoid
From now on this will be called tarmac strategy.
or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official—
Andrew McCabe? We already know he(wife) got $675K through the Punk McCauliffe
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/675000-donation-prompts-call-for-fbis-deputy-director-to-recuse-himself-from-clinton-investigation/
It is legal to intercept communications of an American citizen without a warrant if they intercept it at the end that is on foreign soil. That means the NSA tapped the foreign receiver of the call or email.
-PJ
Look at what we learned from Wikileaks about the NYT. It is part of and ideologically in bed with the Clinton campaign. It as much as the DNC was destroyed by Trump in this past election.
Its reporting perspective is clear, it will say ANYTHING, whether true or not to try to further Clinton, Democrats and to oppose Trump.
They lie. Don't expect them to explain things with out more lies.
Yes, There is No Such Agency.
I’ve been there.
They told me so....................
I would rephrase the question: “WAS there a wire tap?” or something like. If they answer, I don't know then they might be lying because US intelligence agencies know when a recording is being made.
Reminds me of the old game show — Whats My Line. The answers were yes or no and the questions were designed to narrow down to and get to the truth. But the contestant never gave a full answer so as to mislead.
RE: Flynn was not overseas. A FISA warrant is needed to spy on US citizens on US soil.
______________________________
The question I have is this -— Did Flynn converse with the Russians via a tapped conversation that originated from overseas?
If so, then whoever did the wire tapping has an excuse to cover his butt. He can say:
1) We tapped a conservation that originated from overseas
2) The conversation happened to be between Flynn and the overseas party we were surveilling.
If the conversation however was tapped specifically to target Flynn, then yes, it is illegal.
RE: They also say that there was an “inquiry of Trump aides” (see #35) but the targets of the intercepts were the Russians.
A separate article mentioned that they suspected Manafort, Page and Stone ( all Trump aides ) as being in collusion with the Russians. So yes, they were under suspicion. But since it is illegal to wiretap Americans, they had to create a scenario to LEGALLY cover their butts. So, they applied for a FISA warrant to tap RUSSIANS knowing that these folks would be talking to them.
They can always use the excuse that their gathering information about Manafort et. al. was INCIDENTAL.
-PJ
+1
“It is legal to intercept communications of an American citizen without a warrant if they intercept it at the end that is on foreign soil.”
The warrantless surveillance program was one of the gifts of the Patriot Act. It only applies to suspected terrorists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_(2001–07)
Lots of words by NYT editor in hopes it diverts attention.
Her ending was especially weak. Like she simply gave up.
Have you driven a Fnord lately?.................
Kept Obama clean and gave everyone plausible deniability.
I think the plan was hatched on the tarmak in Pheonix
And didn't the Obama administration, in one of his last acts, declare the "election infrastructure" to be a "critical infrastructure" to the Department of Homeland Security?
Wouldn't that then imply that anyone who tries to "hack" the election would be attempting to attack a critical infrastructure, which would be considered to be a terrorist attack?
Wouldn't that then justify treating the hacker as a terrorist for Patriot Act purposes?
-PJ
WHAT?????????
Next they're going to tell me Obama himself didn't kill bin Laden! I don't believe it!
And if only they had let Obama fly the helicopter too, it never would have hit that wall! Take that to the bank!
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.