the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

And he's the one who's supposed to investigate Russian interference/influence. I wonder if he'll recuse himself. I tend to think that it's more likely that he'll be congratulated and told that the whole thing is unnecessary.

At least he refused himself. Interesting that Trump didn't want him too. Hmmm....

Yeah, he recused. But, he should have known beforehand. He should have simply told the Senate committee. He knew that he'd be tasked with investigating any Russian connections. But, forget that aspect, what country can't someone who is up for such a position contact privately? If, for ex., it had been with China or North Korea, would that be alright too?

Anyway, I'm not hating on Russia. I wonder if we have people on our side in Russian government and whether it's okay there. If everything is out in the open, it's cool. It's the secrets, lies and "forgot to mentions" that are hard to swallow.

Intentionally or accidentally, Trump just forced the press to admit how weak the bulk of those allegations were. The wiretapping timeline that has drawn so much attention since Saturday night was largely based on mainstream media reporting. The media is effectively saying, “Hey, wait, we were just blowing smoke. We didn’t think anyone would take those reports seriously and build a case that Obama was wiretapping Trump. We just wanted to make Trump look bad by pumping up vague rumors that he and his campaign might have been under observation!”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-dealing/



Should be an interesting outcome

Still posting stories from Bannon's outlet as though it was *ever* a legitimate news source.

Trump’s allegations raised questions about whether federal authorities had obtained a legal warrant to tap Trump's or his associates’ calls, perhaps through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which can authorize wiretaps against potential foreign spies. Those orders are typically classified, and Trump’s comments sent Washington scrambling to understand his allegations.

You don't seem to get it. Trump has basically incriminated himself with this baseless claim. The order wouldn't have come from Obama. It would have been an investigation into Trump or his people being spies for the Russians and would require evidence to get from a judge. I can't wait for this ship to sink. I hope it takes a while. Of course, what do you care, you don't even vote or read. Hey, I doubt Trump does, either.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/w ... obe-235695

It will be a matter of time before its understood who actually ordered or requested
the wire taps

One of the best and most even-handed observers of the wiretapping drama is Andy McCarthy, who writes for the decidedly non-Trumpian National Review. McCarthy’s Sunday post on the matter is well worth reading in full.

His key point is that some highly unusual FISA requests for surveillance on the Trump campaign were made and were denied by the court, as very few such requests are. The Obama administration was persistent and eventually obtained the authorization it wanted, but there is reason to suspect it was not entirely candid with the FISA court on its final, successful request.

While the National Review has been critical of Trump, it is [i]the[i] conservative outlet and would gladly smear Obama if it meant giving a break to Trump. Hardly nonpartisan. My current understanding is that the POTUS cannot order this sort of wiretap. It has to come from investigators and be approved by a judge only if there is evidence. Of course, the evidence and lying is mounting. Sessions is the latest. Why do these guys have to lie so much? Especially if they don't need to? It's a ticking time bomb.

Where is the evidence? Or is this just another case of "I heard it from someone else?" Funny, Trump uses that excuse all the time but then lambasts the long tradition of undisclosed sources from the media. I'm sure we are all aware of him calling the press under a pseudonym to report on himself in the past. LOL. He is just such a train wreck. At least it ain't boring.

Well, Obama would have been right to examine all Trump's Russia connections as deeply as he could. Trump's a liar, so it's necessary to check. Shucks, all he really had/has to do was say "Yes, I do loads of business in Russia. What's wrong with that?" Like he's said, he could murder someone in the broad daylight and his supporters wouldn't mind. He said it, and it wasn't hyperbole.

Steve James wrote:Well, Obama would have been right to examine all Trump's Russia connections as deeply as he could. Trump's a liar, so it's necessary to check. Shucks, all he really had/has to do was say "Yes, I do loads of business in Russia. What's wrong with that?" Like he's said, he could murder someone in the broad daylight and his supporters wouldn't mind. He said it, and it wasn't hyperbole.

yep not hyperbole, you know this because


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Oga4AVrj8

give it a little time,,,,

Steve James wrote:Well, Obama would have been right to examine all Trump's Russia connections as deeply as he could. Trump's a liar, so it's necessary to check. Shucks, all he really had/has to do was say "Yes, I do loads of business in Russia. What's wrong with that?" Like he's said, he could murder someone in the broad daylight and his supporters wouldn't mind. He said it, and it wasn't hyperbole.

yep a little time

This bring us to Watergate-on-Steroids, or #ObamaGate. Here are the problematic aspects of the Obama surveillance on Trump’s team, and on Trump himself. First, it is not apparent FISA could ever be invoked.

Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance.

Third, it could be that Obama’s team illegally disseminated and disclosed FISA information in direct violation of the statute precisely prohibiting such dissemination and disclosure. FISA prohibits, under criminal penalty, Obama’s team from doing any of the three.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-oba ... veillance/

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.

This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

It would seem the President is following the protocols concerning the dissemination of information, is asking for the appropriate agencies
to do the investigation.

Then where did all the "evidence" and "transcripts" of trump contacts with russia come from?

its a win-win for trump. either there were no taps and the russia accusations are completely fabricated, as are the stories that the fbi, etc. have transcripts of trump contacts with russia.

or obama really wiretapped trump and people are going to fry for it.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/yes-oba ... veillance/

one of the post that sums it up, which given time will prove either "there were no taps the information is not true or there were taps breaking the law and some people will go to jail"

A lot of posts. Ok, what did Obama find out?

Steve James wrote:A lot of posts. Ok, what did Obama find out?

It's not what he found out, its why it was done.

The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi- ... to-russia/

What they found was nothing, but is being alluded to by unnamed sources to add credibility to what ever is said.
Why the second request was granted, requested by who, eventually will be the main focus when the first one was denied.

The issue will be what was said for the second request to be granted, and the scope of the request based on what was presented
to the FISA court.

but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

Was there evidence? Wasn't the president responsible to address the issue if there were? It was done through the courts, no? But, let's just say that it was nastiest thing a president ever did. However, it's also true that there were plenty of connections to Russia and Russian representatives made by members or future members of team Trump. It would be a crime not to investigate deeper. Maybe this will be a good chance for that, too.

March 20th!

First Public Hearing for Russia Election Interference Probe Called

http://www.voanews.com/a/trump-justice- ... 177.htmlte