I think every bit of this is true, and YES there has to be evidence of it. My guess would be somebody within the FBI told Trump and maybe gave him all the particulars......somebody with a bone to pick against Obamao.... Lemme school yas

I'm probably the only person here who has actually gotten title 3 intercepts, I know the paper trail one leaves when such warrrants are obtained. You can't get a title 3 OR A FISA WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HEAD US ATTORNEY IN YOUR DISTRICT. All you have to do is find out who was the USAO/AIC in the District covering NYC and Trump Towers. It really isnt that hard to get such warrant but if they are going after a Presidential Candidate, they must have had some heavy people really pushing it

You would have to go to the USA who SPECIALIZES in FISA cases/warrants, THEY MUST KEEP A COPY OF THE WARRANT AFFIDAVIT that outlines the probable cause in support of the warrant....a whole pile of names, of USA's as well s agents involved int he case. Then they go to the Judge, find out which Judge does FISA cases, real easy, when such warrants re approved the court keep a copy in their files,

You have some idea of the paper trail involved, you have the probable cause developed (or manufactured) then last but not least when the tap is EXECUTED the agents must submit a return, IE a transcript of all the tapes conversations etc etc.  AND IF THE TAPEd CONVERSATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME THE LAW SAYS YOU CANNOT RECORD IT, so unless it is Trump talking about colluding with Putin you'd have to turn the tape off and could record it.....legally....a transcript would show what was taped, this might be enough to start hanging people if they taped something they shouldn't have, like talking about the Campaign in general.

I start with Jeff Sessions appointing a special prosecutor and begin with subpeonea's for all of the aforementioned.
I'd probably start with the agents themselves, squeeze their cojones and they'll give up everybody else like who ordered Them. My guess would be this came from Lynch's office or Lynch herself....if not from Obamao then Jarrett.

This is Sedition, treason and violation of a Citizen (Trumps) rights, if anything will destroy the Dem party...THIS WILL BE IT.

Quote from: walkstall on March 05, 2017, 05:19:05 AM

I think Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) would change his mind if he was getting wiretapped.  I have had 8+ years of b o lying about thing. 

Ben Sasse is being a useful TOOL for the democrats.  Just playing him against Trump...

Billy nails it yet again...

From a law contributor on Dan Abram's site:
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 05, 2017, 05:54:10 AM
I think every bit of this is true, and YES there has to be evidence of it. My guess would be somebody within the FBI told Trump and maybe gave him all the particulars......somebody with a bone to pick against Obamao.... Lemme school yas

I'm probably the only person here who has actually gotten title 3 intercepts, I know the paper trail one leaves when such warrrants are obtained. You can't get a title 3 OR A FISA WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HEAD US ATTORNEY IN YOUR DISTRICT. All you have to do is find out who was the USAO/AIC in the District covering NYC and Trump Towers. It really isnt that hard to get such warrant but if they are going after a Presidential Candidate, they must have had some heavy people really pushing it

You would have to go to the USA who SPECIALIZES in FISA cases/warrants, THEY MUST KEEP A COPY OF THE WARRANT AFFIDAVIT that outlines the probable cause in support of the warrant....a whole pile of names, of USA's as well s agents involved int he case. Then they go to the Judge, find out which Judge does FISA cases, real easy, when such warrants re approved the court keep a copy in their files, You have some idea of the paper trail involved, you have the probable cause developed (or manufactured) then last but not least when the tap is EXECUTED the agents must submit a return, IE a transcript of all the tapes conversations etc etc.  AND IF THE TAPEd CONVERSATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CRIME THE LAW SAYS YOU CANNOT RECORD IT, so unless it is Trump talking about colluding with Putin you'd have to turn the tape off and could record it.....legally....a transcript would show what was taped, this might be enough to start hanging people if they taped something they shouldn't have, like talking about the Campaign in general.

From the link...

QuoteWhat crimes could have been committed? Ironically, for Democrats falsely accusing Attorney General Sessions, perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury, as well as intentional violations of FISA. Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one's adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either "engage in" electronic surveillance under "color of law" under FISA without following the law's restrictions, or "disclose" or "use" information gathered from it in contravention of the statute's sharp constrictions.

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or "grave hostile" war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

One important reminder about electronic surveillance. Occasionally, a law enforcement officer will hear or see or record information not allowed by the warrant, but incidental or accidental to otherwise lawful surveillance. Their job is to immediately stop listening, stop recording, and to delete such information. This is what you occasionally see in films where the agent in the van hears the conversation turn away from something criminal to a personal discussion, and the agent then turns off the listening device and stops the recording. Such films simply recognize long-standing legal practice.

(Billy)

Quote
I start with Jeff Sessions appointing a special prosecutor and begin with subpeonea's for all of the aforementioned.
I'd probably start with the agents themselves, squeeze their cojones and they'll give up everybody else like who ordered Them. My guess would be this came from Lynch's office or Lynch herself....if not from Obamao then Jarrett.

This is Sedition, treason and violation of a Citizen (Trumps) rights, if anything will destroy the Dem party...THIS WILL BE IT.

I thought this was interesting:

QuoteDemocrats may regret Sessions' recusal, as his replacement is a mini-Sessions: a long-respected, a-political, highly ethical prosecutor, Dana Boente, whose reputation is well-warranted from his service at the Tax Division, and who won't be limited by any perceived ties to Trump, given his prior appointment by Obama. Obama himself appeared scared of Boente, as he removed Boente from the successor-to-Sessions position during the lame-duck part of Obama's presidency, but Trump restored Boente to that role earlier this month. Democrats may get the investigation they wanted, but it may be their own that end up named in the indictment.

This article is a must read and really brings you up to speed.  Here's the money shot I think:

QuoteThis raises the second problem: Obama's team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is "material" if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was "financial ties" to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

Quote from: walkstall on March 04, 2017, 09:22:53 AM
My first questions would be, did he also tap Trumps kid's phone also.

Why not. It wasn't like Trump and his family were private citizens or anything. The interesting thing is that booze and the Clown Car Administration, presented their "evidence" - and the first judge laughed it out of court. He then presented it to FISA - and they laughed it out of court. He then went judge shopping, found a friendly judge and got his warrant.

Not "booze", but "Obozo".

Quote from: walkstall on March 05, 2017, 05:19:05 AM

I think Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) would change his mind if he was getting wiretapped.  I have had 8+ years of b o lying about thing. 

Exactly.  When have we known Bammy not to lie, deny and cover up?

Quote from: mdgiles on March 05, 2017, 07:53:25 AM
Why not. It wasn't like Trump and his family were private citizens or anything. The interesting thing is that booze and the Clown Car Administration, presented their "evidence" - and the first judge laughed it out of court. He then presented it to FISA - and they laughed it out of court. He then went judge shopping, found a friendly judge and got his warrant.

Only a FISA court can issue this type of warrant.

Quote from: taxed on March 05, 2017, 07:46:13 AM
Billy nails it yet again...



This article is a must read and really brings you up to speed.  Here's the money shot I think:

Here is the big issue, IF the Tap(surveillance) was authorized because of Trumps connection with Russian Banking or finance, then FISA is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, FISA has to do with espionage by FOREIGN AGENTS...the correct warrant for Trumps supposed foreign banking would be a title 3 intercept for CRIMINAL violations

This is the wrong type of warrant for a CRIMINAL CASE, that is why I say Trump's rights were violated.

Also, like I said previously, when you run an INTERCEPT, you have to have a RETURN on your warrant execution, this means a full transcript of what is being recorded on these "taps", if there was no PROOF of wrong doing, the courts will order the Tap discontinued. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, they ran an intercept, the warrant expired or they had to report to the courts on the "return", the courts examined the "return" (In JUne?????) found no evidence of wrong doing AND REFUSED TO RENEW THE WARRANT....BUT IT WAS STILL UP AND RUNNING IN OCTOBER.

Running an illegal tap is a big no no, somebody WILL go to jail over that one.

Here's another little gem that lends credence to the probability of a "Tap" , Notice how the DETAILS of Trumps conversations with the Australians and with Mexico were "leaked" to the Press....Methinks the surveillance is ongoing, if so it further proof of the violations committed by whomever (we know who that is).

Quote from: mdgiles on March 05, 2017, 07:53:25 AM
Why not. It wasn't like Trump and his family were private citizens or anything. The interesting thing is that booze and the Clown Car Administration, presented their "evidence" - and the first judge laughed it out of court. He then presented it to FISA - and they laughed it out of court. He then went judge shopping, found a friendly judge and got his warrant.

There is a panel of Judges who review the FISA warrant, it is special from a regular title 3 intercept, I don't think there was a much Judge shopping as there was manufactured "probable cause" which has to be outlined in the affidavit in support of the warrant, real easy to lie if one is so inclined.

Here is what people are missing, if this was over Trumps Finances and foreign Banking then FISA is the WRONG TYPE OF WARRANT , the law states that such cannot be used for criminal violations of title 18 usc which would cover some type of bank fruad, financing money laundering etc.

Somebody really screwed up and should hang for it.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on March 05, 2017, 02:18:25 PM
Here is the big issue, IF the Tap(surveillance) was authorized because of Trumps connection with Russian Banking or finance, then FISA is TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE, FISA has to do with espionage by FOREIGN AGENTS...the correct warrant for Trumps supposed foreign banking would be a title 3 intercept for CRIMINAL violations

This is the wrong type of warrant for a CRIMINAL CASE, that is why I say Trump's rights were violated.

Also, like I said previously, when you run an INTERCEPT, you have to have a RETURN on your warrant execution, this means a full transcript of what is being recorded on these "taps", if there was no PROOF of wrong doing, the courts will order the Tap discontinued. IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, they ran an intercept, the warrant expired or they had to report to the courts on the "return", the courts examined the "return" (In JUne?????) found no evidence of wrong doing AND REFUSED TO RENEW THE WARRANT....BUT IT WAS STILL UP AND RUNNING IN OCTOBER.

Running an illegal tap is a big no no, somebody WILL go to jail over that one.

Here's another little gem that lends credence to the probability of a "Tap" , Notice how the DETAILS of Trumps conversations with the Australians and with Mexico were "leaked" to the Press....Methinks the surveillance is ongoing, if so it further proof of the violations committed by whomever (we know who that is).

Billy ... you certainly show experience with this topic. Wouldn't you think that POTUS would have wanted to see the authorization on a tap on Trump Tower before he went public with the notion? if someone finds such a tap authorization, can the document be made public or does it have to go through some kind of process to be released? How long would you estimate that it would take for such a document to legally be made public - any idea?

Sasse has always hated Trump. The media will of  course side with Obama so its  up to Reps to finally grow a spine and  fight.

Quote from: Solar on March 05, 2017, 09:46:52 AM
Only a FISA court can issue this type of warrant.

Once denied they can take it to the appellate court that oversees FISA. All 3 of those judges are Clinton appointees! This is done through the DOJ. No way did this go on without Obama knowing.

Quote from: redbeard on March 05, 2017, 04:00:32 PM
Once denied they can take it to the appellate court that oversees FISA. All 3 of those judges are Clinton appointees! This is done through the DOJ. No way did this go on without Obama knowing.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-obama-could-be-prosecuted-if-involved-with-illegal-surveillance/

UGH! as much as I would like this to be true, I sadly believe this is going to end up badly for Trump. Dems, and it appears the FBI (along with the MSM) are closing ranks and denying this ever happened. If the President does not have ironclad proof, he will pay a huge price for spouting off on twitter about this. Hopefully I am totally wrong but have a very bad feeling about this 

Quote from: redbeard on March 05, 2017, 04:00:32 PM
Once denied they can take it to the appellate court that oversees FISA. All 3 of those judges are Clinton appointees! This is done through the DOJ. No way did this go on without Obama knowing.

Gut feeling here is somehow valerie jarrett's moving into obama's house has something to do with this. Either to give him advise or make sure he keeps his mouth shut. Of course maybe he needs to keep an eye on her? But it does seem the dims are ready for panic mode.